Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job

[Robert Sutherland]

“Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:6 Italics added for emphasis.)


A proper interpretation of this passage turns on the meaning of a rare Hebrew word “em’as”. It stands alone in the received Hebrew text. The word “myself” is not there. The meaning of “em’as” depends on the verbal root from which it is derived, either “ma’as” or “masas”.[i] The first root “ma’as” means “to despise” or “to reject”.[ii] A majority of translations and scholars, including NRSV, derive “em’as” from the root “ma’as”. In this respect, they follow the 10th century Hebrew Masoretic text. The marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic text makes reference to the fact that the original document read “em’as”. The meaning was unclear. So the scribes transcribed it as “ma’as” to bring out their interpretation. The second root “masas” means “to sink down” or “to melt”.[iii] A significant minority of translations and scholars derive “em’as” from the root “masas”. In this respect, they follow a marginal note in the same 10th century Hebrew Masoretic text and the 5th century Greek Septuagint text. The marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic text indicates that while they have used “ma’as”, a variant reading is “masas”.

This author’s interpretation of The Book of Job is compatible with either translation of the word “em’as” and the book may imply both.


If the word is to be understood as “to despise”, then what Job despises is not himself. Job despises premature judgment, especially a premature pronunciation of the condemnation that is the second summary default judgment of his Oath of Innocence. He grants God all of human history to finish his plan for evil in the world.

If the word is to be understood as “to melt”, then Job “melts” or falls to his knees in worship, maintaining a healthy respect for God and for himself. God has twice asked him to stand up, to “gird himself”. (Job 38:3; 40:7) That is the proper position of a litigant. But this is also the Day of Atonement, the day when the devout worshipper falls to his knees. There are only two days in the Jewish liturgical year when a Jewish believer actually bows the knee before God; this is one.[iv] Having given God the benefit of the doubt or the benefit of time, Job “melts” to his knees. He assumes the position he assumed days before when “he fell to the ground and worshipped.” (Job 1:20) “In all this, Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing.” (Job 1:22)

[i] The author’s choice of “em’as” may be a pun implying both “[i]ma’as” or “masas”.

[i][ii] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 488.Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 2, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans.M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 651-660.; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 2, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 833-834.; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 8, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 47-60.

[iii] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 488-489.; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 2, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 1004-1006.; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 8, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 437-439.

[iv] Strassfeld, M., The Jewish Holidays: A Guide and Commentary (Harper and Row, New York, 1985) p. 115-116. The other day was Rosh Hashanah. Goldin, H.E., Code of Jewish Law (Hebrew Publishing Company, New York , 1991) Volume 3, pp. 78, 91.Fellner, J.B., In the Jewish Tradition: A Year of Food and Festivities (Michael Friedman Publishing Group, 1995) p. 31.

[Robert Sutherland]

“Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:6 Italics added for emphasis.)

A proper interpretation of this passage turns on the meaning of the Hebrew word “naham”. “Naham means either “to change course” or “to comfort or be comforted”.



[i]This author’s interpretation of The Book of Job is compatible with either interpretation of the word.

If the word is to be understood as “changing course”, then Job “changes course” with respect to the enforcement mechanism of his Oath of Innocence. When God appeared to Job and did not enter a defense, Job was automatically vindicated in his two-fold claim that God is the author of undeserved evil in the world and that he had a right to know the reason why. On the terms of the Oath of Innocence, he was morally and legally entitled to “proceed further” to a condemnation of God by way of curse. And without any suggestions of a possible answer to the question of evil in the world, he had intended to condemn God. But such suggestions of moral purpose in evil were forthcoming in God’s second speech. So Job rightly changes his mind and changes the course of his prosecution of God. Job does not and cannot retract or withdraw his Oath of Innocence. That would be to prematurely acquit God. That would be a sin. There is a prima facie case for God to answer that has not been answered. Evil cannot be simply dismissed as something other than it is. God would not allow such partiality in judgement to go unpunished. Job adjourns the Oath of Innocence to the Day of Judgment so that he might hear from Redeemer a third time. The adjournment is implied in the phrase “in dust and ashes”.

If the word is to be understood as “being comforted”, then Job is “comforted” in two ways. First, when God appeared to Job and did not enter a defense, Job was automatically vindicated in his two-fold claim that God is the author of undeserved evil in the world and that he had a right to know the reason why. Second, Job is “comforted” that God has come to him in the midst of his suffering. It is evidence that God cares. It is evidence that persuades Job to adjourn his Oath of Innocence, to wait for God’s final answer. God has not abandoned Job. God has not abandoned mankind. Whatever is the reason for evil in the world, it is not punishment or character development. Still the evidence of God’s presence is not sufficient evidence to acquit God on the charges facing him. The mere fact that God is with those who suffer is not, in and of itself, a justification for God having caused the suffering in the first place. God’s ex-post facto compassion may be relevant to sentence but not to guilt. Job adjourns the Oath of Innocence to the Day of Judgment so that he might hear from his Redeemer a third time. The fact that God cares encourages Job to believe he will ultimately get that answer. The adjournment is implied in the phrase “in dust and ashes”.

“Naham” can be translated “repent” but only in the loosest possible sense and a potentially misleading sense. The New Oxford Annotated Edition of the NRSV adds an important editorial note to its translation of the word “naham” as “repent”:

“Repent, a verb that is often used to indicate a change of mind on the Lord’s part (Exodus 32:14; Jeremiah 18:8, 10). Here it does not mean repentance for sin (see vv. 7-8, where Job is said to have spoken what is right).”[ii]

Shub” is the normal Hebrew word for a repentance that involves a confession of wrongdoing or sin.[iii] “Shub” means “turning away from sin and returning to God through repentance.”[iv] The author of The Book of Job has carefully chosen his words. He has deliberately chosen “naham” as opposed to “shub”. The author is tempting the inattentive reader to premature judgment. He is tempting the reader to find that Job is confessing sin, either for his so-called excessive words, his Oath of Innocence or both. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Job never confesses sin. He never confesses to having wrongfully used excessive language. He never confesses to having wrongfully instituted his Oath of Innocence. And he never retracts or withdraws his Oath of Innocence. God would later say Job was right in everything he said. (Job 42:7-8) In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to attribute sin or wrongdoing to Job for either his so-called excessive words or his Oath of Innocence. If Job were actually confessing sin of any sort, then Job would be damned on the terms of his Oath of Innocence. The Oath of Innocence once sworn cannot be withdrawn as having been wrongfully instituted. If Job were actually confessing sin of any sort, then Satan would be proven right in his challenge of God. And the consequences would be enormous. God would be proven wrong in his three judgments on Job. (Job 1:8-9; 2:3; 42:7) God should step down from his throne. And all of mankind should be destroyed as a failed project.

[i][i] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 570-571. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 2, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans.M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 734-739.; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 3, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 81-82.; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 9, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 340-355.

[ii] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books, Edit. B.M.Metzger and R.E.Murphy (Oxford University Press, New York, 1991) footnote to Job 42:6.

[iii] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 571, 909.;

[iv] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) p. 909.; Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 3, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans.M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 1312-1317.; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 4, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 55-59.

[Robert Sutherland]

“Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes." (Job 42:6 Italics added for emphasis.)

In dust and ashes, I adjourn the Oath of Innocence to the Final Judgment to hear from my Redeemer a third time.




In part, “dust and ashes” are the condition of man in this world. Man is but dust and ashes in a world of suffering. But it is a world Job accepts. He does not now ask for any other world. He does not ask for a restoration of his former condition. The dust heap, the ash heap, on which he now sits, is where he is content to remain. He himself is on the verge of death, soon to become dust and ashes. Job will not condemn God or ask God to change his ways to suit Job’s needs. This is the one of the deepest surrenders imaginable.



But more importantly, the phrase “dust and ashes” implies a continuation of Job’s lawsuit with a certain defiance.


That continuing challenge and defiance is its association with Abraham’s challenge of God. When Abrahamchallenged the Lord God of the universe, the “judge of all the earth”, to “judge rightly” concerned Sodom and Gomorrah and to slay not the “righteous with the guilty” (Genesis 18:22-33), he described himself as “dust and ashes”.


“Then the LORD said, ‘How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.’ So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the LORD. Then Abraham came near and said, ‘Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?

Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?’ And the LORD said, ‘If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.’ Abraham answered, ‘Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, [i]I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?’ And he said, ‘I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.’ Again he spoke to him, ‘Suppose forty are found there.’ He answered, ‘For the sake of forty I will not do it.’ Then he said, ‘Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.’ He answered, ‘I will not do it, if I find thirty there.’ He said, ‘Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.’ He answered, ‘For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.’ Then he said, ‘Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.’ He answered, ‘For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.’ And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.” (Genesis 18:20-33 Italics added for emphasis)

Seven times, this man of “dust and ashes” continues his challenge of God: (1) “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked.” (Genesis 18:23); (2) “Far be it from you…Far be it from you.” (Genesis 18:25); (3)“Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? (Genesis 18:28); (4) “Suppose forty are found there?” (Genesis 18:29); (5) “Suppose thirty are found there?” (Genesis 18:30); (6) “Suppose twenty are found there?” (Genesis 18:31); (7) “Suppose ten are found there?” (Genesis 18:32) Like Job, Abraham was demanding that God give answers for his moral activity in the world. Thus, the phrase “dust and ashes” describes the man who has the moral courage to challenge God and to continue his challenge of God, even in the face of God’s possible anger. (Genesis 18:30,32) In fact, the context may even make that linkage stronger. The exchange between God and Abraham is preceded by God’s comment: “’Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do [namely, destroy Sodom and Gommorah]…No, for I have chosen him that he may charge his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing justice.” (Genesis 18:17-19) Thus it would seem that “doing justice” can mean challenging God and God gives him the opportunity “to keep the way of the LORD” by doing so.


The phrase “dust and ashes” implies Job is continuing his challenge of God. Its use here should not be read as an indication of capitulation on Job’s part. Whenever Old Testament writers wish to indicate a hopeless resignation, they always use either the word “dust” or “ashes”, but never the two words together. The phrase “dust and ashes” is associated with a fiery challenge of God and the discerning reader should see that Job has not lost his fire in the belly. Abraham’s challenge of God may not have been expressed in terms of a formal lawsuit, but it has all the elements of a covenantal dispute. The phrase “dust and ashes” is strong literary evidence that Job is not withdrawing the lawsuit. He is not backing down. He is merely changing course as to its prosecution. Combining piety with protest, Job now continues to challenge God with his patience and his silence.

The phrase “dust and ashes” only occurs in one other place in the entire Bible. “He has cast me into the mire and I have become like dust and ashes.” (Job 30:19) At first glance, it might appear that Job 30:19 is the proximate literary context within which to interpret Job 42:6. However, I do not believe this is the case. Things make sense in terms of context. The context is not merely physical proximity but thematic relevance. Abraham’s challenge of God and Job’s second speech are forensic or court-room speech involving dialogue with God. Hence, Job 42:6 should be read in light of Genesis 18:27. The existence of the phrase “dust and ashes” in Job 30:19 may complicate my argument; but I do not believe it subverts it. Arguably, Job 30:19 is a restatement of an earlier comment by Job: “If I wash myself with soap and clean my hands with lye, yet you will plunge me into filth, and my own clothes will abhor me.” (Job 9:30-31) That earlier statement occurs in the first prolonged 'courtroom' scene: Job’s speech concerning a mediator. Hence, Job 30:19 is not without a forensic dimension and may even provide collateral support to my interpretation. All three uses of “dust and ashes” are forensic and the allusion to Genesis 18:27 best fits the forensic dynamic of Job’s second speech. [ii]


The discerning reader may see in the phrase “dust and ashes” a further reference to the “earth”, literally the “dust”, upon which Job’s Redeemer will stand to render judgment in Job’s favour on the Day of Judgment. (Job 19:25-27) In that earlier context, that “earth” is the person Job reduced to ashes. That blood-stained “earth”, that blood-stained “dust and ashes”, cries out for justice. It is Job’s moral claim to an answer for why there is evil in the world. Job’s Redeemer will hear that cry for justice and press Job’s claim in the High Court of Heaven long after Job is dead. Job knows he will have his answer on the Day of the Final Judgment. (Job 19:25-29) The trial date has been set. The author of the Book of Job is here connecting Job’s continuing challenge of God with an anticipated final judgment in Job’s favour.

On the dynamics of his Oath of Innocence, Job cannot withdraw the lawsuit without being damned and putting Satan in the right. He can however adjourn the condemnation that is part of the enforcement mechanism of the Oath of Innocence. An adjournment would be consistent with a continuing challenge. And the appropriate time for that adjournment would be the trial date which has already been set. That is what is artfully being done through the phrase “dust and ashes”, a phrase pregnant with the idea of an ongoing challenge. The lawsuit is adjourned to the Day of the Final Judgment. This is the deepest surrender God knew possible. This is the selfless love and moral integrity for which the world was created. This is what preserves the moral integrity of God and man.

Within a canonical perspective, The Book of Job rewrites an important part of The Book of Revelation. On the Day of the Final Judgment, the trial of God will precede the trial of man. When all human beings appear before the Judgement Seat of God, a preliminary motion will be made to the jurisdiction of the court. No judge who is himself a criminal may pass judgement on humanity. In fact, that preliminary motion has already been made. Job made it through his Oath of Innocence. That question must be settled before God can judge all mankind. God's trial by Job will continue then and he will complete his defence. It is Job’s conviction that God’s final answer to the question of why there is evil in the world will settle all doubts, wipe away all tears. When all is known and understood, all will bow the knee before the Lord. God will then assume the great white throne of judgment and judge mankind on the selflessness of their love for God.

Job trusts in the goodness of God in spite of all the evil around him. He bows the knee now and will bow it then. His conviction is a matter of great faith. His conviction is a matter of great insight into what has been said and what has been left unsaid. Job will not pass judgment prematurely and neither should we.

[ii] For this insight, I am profoundly indebted to Dr. Gerald Janzen.

[Abogado del Diablo]

“Therefore I retract/despise, and repent/change course/comforted in dust and ashes." (Job 42:6)


Ma'as

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

A proper interpretation of this passage turns on the meaning of a rare Hebrew word “em’as”.

As I pointed out in by post above, ma'as, is the key word here and gives guidance to the choice of naham over shub.

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

If the word is to be understood as “to despise”, then what Job despises is not himself. Job despises premature judgment, especially a premature pronunciation of the condemnation that is the second summary default judgment of his Oath of Innocence. He grants God all of human history to finish his plan for evil in the world.

Unless it's meant to be "retract" which would fit in with the idea of an inappropriate accusation of God but which does not imply one way or the other whether such accusations will be brought again. The use of naham suggests that they will not be - that Job retracts his accusation and will not bring it again.

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

If the word is to be understood as “to melt”, then Job “melts” or falls to his knees in worship, maintaining a healthy respect for God and for himself. God has twice asked him to stand up, to “gird himself”. (Job 38:3; 40:7) That is the proper position of a litigant. But this is also the Day of Atonement, the day when the devout worshipper falls to his knees. There are only two days in the Jewish liturgical year when a Jewish believer actually bows the knee before God; this is one.

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

[iv] Having given God the benefit of the doubt or the benefit of time, Job “melts” to his knees. He assumes the position he assumed days before when “he fell to the ground and worshipped.” (Job 1:20) “In all this, Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing.” (Job 1:22)

If the word is meant to be "melt" that would be very poetic but really doesn't give much guidance as to the meaning of the sentence. Not to say that it isn't intended to be a derivative of masas - just that if it is that doesn't clarify anything.

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

[i]The author’s choice of “em’as” may be a pun implying both “ma’as” or “masas”.

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

That's cool if true.


Naham

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

If the word is to be understood as “changing course”, then Job “changes course” with respect to the enforcement mechanism of his Oath of Innocence.

Or he changes course on his judgments of what is good and evil, just and unjust, right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

When God appeared to Job and did not enter a defense, Job was automatically vindicated in his two-fold claim that God is the author of undeserved evil in the world and that he had a right to know the reason why.

That would necessarily ignore God's lengthy reply and doesn't fit in with Job's conclusion:


"I am unworthy-how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
I spoke once, but I have no answer-
twice, but I will say no more."

and later

"You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
Therefore I retract/despise
and repent/change course in dust and ashes." (emphasis added)

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

On the terms of the Oath of Innocence, he was morally and legally entitled to “proceed further” to a condemnation of God by way of curse.

Unless condemnation is what he retracted and changed course from.

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

But such suggestions of moral purpose in evil were

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

forthcoming in God’s second speech.

There are no moral justifications for evil in God's second speech. As your post above correctly pointed out, God offered no defense of evil.

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

If the word is to be understood as “being comforted”, then Job is “comforted” in two ways. First, when God appeared to Job and did not enter a defense, Job was automatically vindicated in his two-fold claim that God is the author of undeserved evil in the world and that he had a right to know the reason why. Second, Job is “comforted” that God has come to him in the midst of his suffering.

But God came to Job in the midst of his suffering before Chapter 42. "Change course" makes more sense to me under the circumstances and fits better with "retract" (ma'as).


Dust and Ashes

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

In part, “dust and ashes” are the condition of man in this world. Man is but dust and ashes in a world of suffering. But it is a world Job accepts. He does not now ask for any other world. He does not ask for a restoration of his former condition. The dust heap, the ash heap, on which he now sits, is where he is content to remain. He himself is on the verge of death, soon to become dust and ashes. Job will not condemn God or ask God to change his ways to suit Job’s needs. This is the one of the deepest surrenders imaginable.

That is beautifully said. I am not convinced that it indicates a continuation of his "lawsuit" against God. The above paragraph about the "depth of surrender" expresses more meaning to me than the notion that Job is still accusing God of being the author of evil to answer on the day of judgment. That could be a great story, too, but I just don't see it in Job.

[Robert Sutherland]

On the subject of whether Job submits in his first speech, I doubt it.

In God’s first speech, God has focused on the vast grandeur of creation. But Job has asked a question concerning justice, not power. And God had seemingly dodged the question, belittling Job’s intelligence but not his integrity. Job’s response is worth noting.


“See, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice, but will proceed no further." (Job 40:3-5 Italics added for emphasis.)



With some irony, Job accepts the irrelevance of it all and throws it back at God as a defense. “See” God, in comparison to the vast grandeur of creation, “I am of small account”. Why would you God ever expect one of such “small account” as I to declare to you the things you ask? “I lay my hand on my mouth,” perhaps to conceal my laughter, certainly because there is nothing more to say. The issue is not power, but justice. On that point, “I have spoken once” in my Oath of Innocence and “I will not answer” until you have addressed the moral question I raised. I “will proceed no further” at this time. You’ve given me nothing to answer. But there is one further step that remains in the Oath of Innocence. That is a condemnation of God for not giving an explanation for evil in the world. That condemnation is a curse. Job seems to hesitate. He is forcing God’s hand and giving him one final chance to say something concerning his creation and control of evil.

[Robert Sutherland]

On the subject of suggestions of a defense by God in his second speech, I would note:

1. the name "Leviathan" alludes to Isaiah's reinterpretion of this Canaanite and Babylonian myth,

2. that Isaian apocalypse speaks of a final destruction of that evil and an explanation for that evil,

3. that Isaian background gives Job reason to believe a full answer will be forthcoming, as it can be read as setting out the existence of an answer but no details (hence no real defense offered). For a fuller explanation, I would refer you to http://www.bookofjob.org and the brown tab on the left called "Putting God on Trial" which details those allusions.

[Robert Sutherland]

On the subject of God's approval of what Job said, I would note the following.

Now God passes judgment on Job and his three friends. Elihu has fled the scene, hoping to escape God’s judgment.[ii] Ironically, Elihu only escapes the opportunity for forgiveness.


[i]“After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has. Now therefore take seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you, for I will accept his prayer not to deal with you according to your folly; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has done." (Job 42:7-8 Italics added for emphasis.)

Job is declared by God to be the only one who has spoken “rightly” about God. The Hebrew word behind “right” is “kuwn”. “Kuwn” means “to establish as right or true”.[iii] “The root meaning is to bring something into being with the consequence that its existence is a certainty.” [iv] It does not carry with it any nuance of “sincerity” such that God might be understood to be excusing Job for speaking “sincerely”, but “incorrectly”. God is saying Job spoke “correctly”.[v] Through his Oath of Innocence, Job has established with certainty two points. First, God is the author of evil in the world and that evil is undeserved. Second, man has a right and need to know what why God has sent evil into the world. That is the judgment of God.[vi]

Job’s three friends are declared by God to have spoken “folly”. The Hebrew word behind “folly” is “nebalah”. “Nebalah” means “a senseless, impious, disgraceful disregard for moral and spiritual claims”[vii] The moral and spiritual claim which they have senselessly and disgracefully dismissed is Job’s claim, his demand that God give an answer to the question of why there is evil in the world. That is the judgment of God.

God’s condemnation of Job’s three friends has an impact reminiscent of the prophet Nathan’s condemnation of King David. King David had an affair with Bathsheba, got her pregnant and had her husband murdered to cover up the sin. (2 Samuel 12:1-15) The prophet Nathan found out about of it, composed a parable about it and confronted King David with it. The gist of the parable was this. A poor man had nothing, but a little lamb whom he loved with all his heart. A rich man had everything. He took the lamb from the poor man, killed it and served it as a meal to a stranger. (2 Samuel 12:1-4) The poor man was Bathsheba’s husband. The rich man was King David. Now, literature has a way of deeply engaging its reader. King David was so moved by the story that he condemned the rich man in it, saying “as the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die…because he had no pity.” (2 Samuel 12:5-6) Nathan’s response: “You are the man.” (2 Samuel 12:7)

Job’s three friends, and perhaps the inattentive reader, were all looking for Job to be condemned, either for his extreme words or for his Oath of Innocence or both. The author further tempted them to that premature judgment with Job’s use of the ambiguous word “repent”. A condemnation issues, but it is God’s condemnation of Job’s three friends and the inattentive listener. “You are that man.” “You are the one deserving condemnation.” “You deserve to die because you had no pity on Job.” “You have senselessly and disgracefully dismissed the important moral question Job rightly raised.” That is the judgment of God.

So Job prays for his friends.

“So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went and did what the LORD had told them; and the LORD accepted Job's prayer. And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job when he had prayed for his friends; and the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before. Then there came to him all his brothers and sisters and all who had known him before, and they ate bread with him in his house; they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him…” (Job 42:9-11 Italics added for emphasis.)

Once again, the author reaffirms that fact that it is God and no other that has brought “evil” into the world. The Hebrew word for “evil” here is “ra-a”, the same word used to describe Job’s turning from evil (Job 1:1,8) and Job’s comment “shall we not receive good at the hand of God, and not receive the bad”. (Job 2:10) The word for evil carries “a dual meaning of being wrong in regard to God’s original and ongoing intention and detrimental in terms of its effects on man.”[viii] It is the author’s profound commentary on God’s two contradictory intentions in the creation of the world and the creation of evil. The only harmonization will come on the day of the Final Judgment when God answers Job a third time.

The appropriate response to those who suffer is sympathy and comfort.

{i} If Elihu was present, then God may just have ignored him. The reason would not lie in the truth of what Elihu had to say, for Elihu clearly spoke incorrectly of God. The reason would lie in his age. Elihu may have been below the age of moral accountability. In Hebrew law, accountability increases with age. Age 20 is an important turning point. Those below age 20 were not required to pay the poll tax which was understood as a ransom for their lives. (Exodus 30:14) Those below age 20 were not subject to certain levies for the building of the Temple. (Exodus 38:26) Those below age 20 were not recorded on the natural census. (Numbers 1:18) Those below age 20 were not subject to military service. (Numbers 26:2) Those below age 20 were exempted from God’s judgment that those who had rebelled in the wilderness could not enter the promised land. (Numbers 32:11) If Elihu were merely an overly enthusiastic teenager, then God may have spared him condemnation on a legal technicality; he was below the age of moral accountability.





[ii] My wife thinks God feeds Elihu to Leviathan as he is talking to Job. Some of Elihu’s comments read like a self-imprecation: “I’ll be damned if God appears to answer you.” In light of the Egyptian background to an Oath of Innocence, damnation is feeding the sinner to the chaos monster Ammit.





[i][iii] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 433-434. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 2, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans.M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 602-606.; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 2, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 615-617.; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 7, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 89-101.

[iv] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 433.

[v] Pope, M., The Anchor Bible: Job (Doubleday, New York, 1973) p. 350.

[vi] Any attempt to limit the scope of God’s words here to Job’s declaration of innocence alone is fundamentally flawed. In his Oath of Innocence, Job asserted both his innocence and God’s causal responsibility for evil. A declaration of innocence is a statement about Job. A declaration of causal responsibility by God is a statement about God. Since God says the truth of Job’s statements and the error of friends’ statements lays in their comments on God, God’s comments here make no sense unless he is referring to Job’s attribution of evil to God and his friends’ denials of that attribution.

[vii] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 547.;Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 2, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans.M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 710-714.; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 3, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 11-14.; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 9, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 157-172.

[viii] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) p. 854-856.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

On the subject of God's approval of what Job said, I would note the following.

Robert:

You make a very compelling case that Job harbors an accusation against God for creating evil at the end of the story. I agree that it isn't unreasonable to interpret the story as a sort of cynical divine comedy. I don't find much spiritual insight in that interpretation because I am not bothered by "the problem of suffering." In fact, I don't have any experience or knowledge of an external anthropomorphized "God" as imagined in literal myth so I find little spiritual truth in Job when interepreted the way you suggest.

I do not dispute that the author could have intended that it be interpreted that way or that it is reasonable to interpret the way you do. That interpretation is just not enlightening to me.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Robert:

You might have mentioned that you wrote an entire book on this subject.

www.bookofjob.org

That would explain how you put all of this together so quickly (you had already written it). I'm not sure why you solicited thoughts on the subject when you intended to drop your book on anyone who bit. Oh well.

I have read excerpts from your book and obviously haven't had the time to delve into the issue as much as you have. However, at the outset I don't agree with how much you read into the phrase "dust and ashes", particularly given its use in Job 30:19. I think that's an interesting story - man challenges God to justify evil on the "day of judgment." I'm just not sure I see that story in Job.

Moreover, that resolution - God will explain the evil at a later date - simply rings hollow to me. That's an answer that reminds of the feeling I had upon completing Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus." I know a much more meaningful resolution to good/evil and god/human.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Robert:

I do have one question. What if - on the day of judgment - God comes to offer his defense at his trial and Job remains unconvinced and convicts God as a monster?

For example: what if God's explanation is that he allowed evil and suffering solely for his own entertainment?

[Quahom1]

"Have you not considered my servant Job?"

The answer is right there.

Combine that with "I knew you before you were stitched together in the womb".

He knows what we can do. And - oh my, Has He FAITH in US or what?!

I love this forum. I get more out of this with you all then I would out of a thousand sermons at church.

Have a blessed day.

v/r

Q

[Charles DaCosta]

Originally Posted by Robert Sutherland

Does Job sin in the Book of Job?

Not that I can recall. But that was the whole point. Satan's argument was that if God would allow Job to suffer, Job would sin.

The Book is really about Job's trail, and the other main characters are an all powerful controller (God) and a persecutor (Satan). Yes it is ture that the other two main characters are playing with Jobs life. However if you read Ecleasesactis (that book next to Proverbs) you will get the impression that God did not promise even the faithfull a good time only. It states we will have both good and bad. And yes, if you believe God is... then God is the reason for both.

The new testiment even presents a God that will try us by fire. Symbolic for pain and suffering.

The Book of Job gives me the impression that Job had it good for "too long".

The Christian God is like Zen : nomatter what "bad things happen" -- maybe it is the .. that bring you to enlightenment or total unenlightenment .. we will not know until you go through it. And that you will.

[Jeannot]

Bump.

I think this whole thread deserves renewed attention.

[Jeannot]

The point of this thread is the very basic question for any religious person of (in Milton's words) "justifying the ways of God to man." The occasion is the Book of Job, one of the great works not only in the Bible, but in world literature. Job may have provided more food for thought than any other work in Jewish scriptures, at least.

The original poster here is Robert Sutherland, and his thesis is bluntly that Job is putting God on trial as much as the other way around. And that Job is right to insist on his innocence.

"Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him.
But I will maintain my own ways before Him."

[Jeannot]

In line with the thesis of this thread, it's interesting that in one parable, Jesus compares God with an unjust judge.