Dialouge Between God and Job: The Tale of an Honorable Man in the Face of Injustice
By Laura Moyneur
For most of its history, the Book of Job has been viewed as an explanation for why the innocent suffer, an interpretation established by the book’s canonicity. However, recent scholarship has led to the questioning of the postulate that the work is canonical, suggesting that it may not adhere to modern, traditional Christian and Jewish notions of the divine (Cooper 227). This unconventional conclusion emerges through two seemingly mutually exclusive ideas in the book: first, Job is innocent of any wrong-doing, which God confirms in the prologue (New Oxford Annotated Bible, Job 1:8); and second, God is just, as Job’s friends argue in the debate (Job 4-11). These two notions seem contradictory because if one is true, the other should be false: if God is just, then Job, an innocent man, should not suffer (Morriston 340-341; Caesar 436; Steinmann 97; Cooper 234-235). Yet both views exist in the biblical reading of the story. This paper attempts to make sense of these two conflicting ideas about God in order to interpret the meaning of the Book of Job as a literary work, setting aside religious understandings as well as all historical-critical problems.1
After reading the frustrating first chapters of the book in which Job’s property is raided, his children and their families are killed, he himself is cursed with a gruesome skin disease, and his friends accuse him of wrongdoing (1:1-37:24), the reader hopes to find some sort of satisfactory answer as to why God succumbs to Satan’s provocation. Unfortunately, when God finally confronts Job “out of the whirlwind” (38:1), He completely ignores Job’s request for a trial, and furthermore, altogether fails to acknowledge or explain why Job has been unnecessarily punished (38:1-41:34). At first glance, it seems that God’s speeches describe the world as a vibrant, beautiful place with moral order. However, a closer look at the animals in it reveals a series of predators, such as the hawk that “soars, and spreads its wings toward the south” (39:26) and the eagle that “from [its nest] spies the prey; its eyes see it from far away” (39:29).2 These animals are birds of prey. They indicate that Job is a part of the natural food chain, and that just as there is no explanation for why predators hunt and eat prey, God can provide no reason for Job’s suffering (Morriston 349). The passage suggests a lack of moral order in the world—the earth is a chaotic place full of animals that eat each other. The exegesis of this first divine speech suggests that there is no specific reason as to why terrible events happen to Job.
God’s second, more complex speech (40:6-41:38) describes two terrifying creatures: Behemoth, a supernatural bull, and Leviathan, a fire-breathing sea serpent.3 The monsters, like the predatory animals in the first speech, are perfect examples of untamed nature and they suggest a chaotic, terrifying world without moral order (Sawyer 34). God describes them as very dangerous, violent creatures. Behemoth’s “bones are tubes of bronze, [and] its limbs like bars of iron” (40:18) while Leviathan is so terrifying that “No one is so fierce as to dare to stir it up” (41:10). God’s question, “Will you even put me in the wrong?” (40:8), indicates that He understands Job’s speeches as criticism of His rule over the earth, as well as a demand for a different world order (Clines 40n), one that creates a safe environment without innocent suffering. God, however, has no plans to change His governance, even if it does leave the world in chaos, so His response is ironic. He plans to let Job attempt to re-order the world by defeating all evil (40:11–13)—that way he will have no reason to complain. He only mentions Behemoth and Leviathan to prove His point: Job cannot even begin to understand the nature of the world. Both creatures are extremely dangerous, and thus to try and capture them is absurd, which proves that Job has no right to question God’s governance. They represent “God’s freedom to refuse rules and rationality and principles of utility” (Clines 40n). Although this speech explains that God has complete control over the universe, it still fails to elucidate why He allows evil and suffering to exist in the world. Moreover, it suggests that God has no reason at all for punishing Job.4
Job responds to God’s two lengthy speeches with a short reply that ends with the phrase, “I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42:6). According to the text’s standard interpretation, although God ignores Job’s request for a trial and offers no direct or satisfying explanation whatsoever for his suffering, Job still accepts and even appreciates the response (Kuyper 94). He comes to the realization that not every world event is determined by divine judgment; many events simply occur at random. God’s speeches describe the world as beautiful and joyful, but a place where fearsome and uncontrollable creatures, such as Behemoth and Leviathan, also exist (Newsom 1; Scholnick 529). When Job finally accepts the reality that the world is not always fair, his anger and resentment are replaced by closure and peace. He serenely accepts God's world as well as his own finitude (Morriston 352); more importantly, as Morriston so eloquently explains, Job comes to understand that God is “an impartial source and preserver of a certain order and balance among all the competing forces of nature, of which human life is only one” (354).
It is necessary to note that Job’s response to God’s speeches is remarkably brief. For thirty-nine chapters, he anxiously waits to confront God, but when God finally does talk directly to Job, He gives him a seemingly off-topic speech about a beautiful and terrifying universe where creatures such as a hippopotamus and crocodile exist. After all Job suffers—the death of his entire family, the obliteration of his home and property, the destruction of his belongings, and the agony from the sores on his body—all God has to offer as consolation in His speeches are meaningless descriptions of the world, like goats on the mountainside and the east wind of the earth (39:1; 38:24). Yet all Job says in return is, “I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42:6). While many popular English translations suggest that Job realizes he is wrong to question God’s motives and actions, there is ambiguity in the text’s original Hebrew that makes the translation of the phrase more complicated. Considering the prologue of the story, which states that Job is upright and virtuous, it seems unlikely that Job would “despise himself” or that he would “repent in dust and ashes.” The entire story exists because Job is innocent, so how could he be repenting? A closer examination of the Hebrew text reveals the difficulty of the book’s language and allows Job’s last words to be interpreted in various ways, many of which contradict the phrase’s typical interpretation. According to Morrow (211), the original Hebrew of 42:6 is:
'al-kēn 'em'as wěnihamtî 'al 'ādpār wā'ēper
The difficulty of the texts begins with the first verb, 'em'as, which means ‘I reject,’ ‘I refuse,’ or ‘I despise.’ This verb needs an object, but unfortunately the Hebrew text provides none, which leaves exactly what Job is rejecting, refusing, or despising unknown. Typical English translations try to make sense of the phrase by saying, “I despise myself.” A second problem comes from the next verb, wěnihamtî, which as many English versions of the Bible state, means ‘I am sorry’ or ‘I repent,’ but also means ‘I am consoled.’ Third, the two final nouns in 42:6, 'ādpār and wā'ēper, which typically translate to “dust and ashes,” are preceded with an ambiguous preposition, 'al, which can mean ‘of,’ ‘upon,’ or ‘about’ (Erickson; Clines, “Job’s Last Words;” Muenchow 597; Morrow 211). Fourth, there is debate about what the words “dust and ashes” mean. The phrase may be metaphorical and refer to death or the human condition as a result of being mortal and thereby insignificant; or the phrase may be literal: Job might be referring to the place he is sitting, “among the ashes” (2:8).
Based on the vagueness of Job’s response, his words can be read in multiple, distinctive ways, and the book fails to end with any sense of closure. God’s speech may cause an interior change in Job; he may submit to God in humility, recognize his own finitude, and embrace his place in the uncontrollable, beautiful world, knowing that not everything in life will be fair: “I despise my words [because I spoke wrongly about You, God] and I repent” (Erickson). Maybe Job reluctantly accepts God’s response and chooses to stop grieving: “I retract my lawsuit against God and I will turn from my grief” (Erickson). Or perhaps Job’s response is just sarcastic, claiming he despises himself simply for dramatic effect: “Whatever, God, You’re all-powerful and I’m a worm” (Erickson). Although these are all possibilities, the closest translation and arguably the best interpretation is that Job completely rejects God’s answer. In the first part of Job’s response, God’s speech is so unsatisfactory that he gives up arguing out of sheer frustration, knowing that God will never acknowledge wrongdoing: “I reject Your response.” In the second part, one of the many meanings of the Hebrew verb wěnihamtî is to be ‘consoled’ or ‘comforted,’ and in the context of the book, this most likely suggests that Job decides to accept the consolation of his friends: “I will be comforted by my friends in these dust and ashes.” In this case, the dust and ashes are literally the ashes that he has been sitting in since the second verse of the story (Clines, “Job’s Last Words”). Together, the best interpretation of Job’s response should be read as: “I reject Your answer, God, but I accept the consolation [of my grief from my friends] in the dust and ashes.”
This view of Job’s response makes God’s speeches seem like monologues designed to distract from the fact that He agreed to torment Job simply because of a wager with Satan (1:9-23; 2:3-6). It moreover suggests that, contrary to the book’s standard interpretation, God is a deity who is not always good, a thought that has likewise echoed throughout pagan and polytheistic literature since Homer, such as the Iliad 19.86-94, and Shakespeare, “Like flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport” (King Lear 4.1.35-36 qtd. in Sawyer 31). God punishes Job, a good, upright person, because of a wager He made with Satan by killing his entire family and giving him an agonizing skin disease—an extreme punishment for a sin Job did not commit. Even the ‘happy ending,’ in which his prosperity is restored, and family replaced (42:7-17), is not convincing enough to indicate that God is fair and just. The atrocity of what Job experiences will never be forgotten—dead children particularly can never be replaced, and it is easy to imagine Job like Rachel, “weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more” (New Oxford Annotated Bible, Jer. 31:15 qtd. in Sawyer 35).
The Book of Job’s discussion of innocent and undeserved suffering is universal and timeless while also extremely complex. In part, the book exemplifies that God’s essence is so intangible that conjecture will only lead to distortion and resentment. Simultaneously, it indicates that human suffering, no matter how intense, inconceivable, or unjustifiable, can always be taken with elegance and virtue. From the beginning, Job is put into a horrific situation, with the loss of his family, wealth, and health, all because of a petty wager that God makes with Satan. When Job asks God to explain himself, He dives into a long, oblique lecture that fails to provide any explanation for Job’s unfair punishment. Despite the unsatisfactory answer, Job proves himself to be a strong, persistent person who does not give up so easily. He is a “fierce rebel, the fighter who [dares] to face God and speak up as a free man” (Wiesel 231). Instead of repenting and humiliating himself, Job rejects God’s speeches, and confronts his grief as an “uncompromising and whole man” (Wiesel 229 qtd. in Glazov 33)—he sees that sometimes life is unpredictable and beyond human control. More importantly, he shows that it is possible to be righteous as well blessed (Newsom 1) and does not curse God’s name as Satan predicts when his wealth and family are taken.5 What’s more, even after all of his suffering, Job still sees joy in life, and is willing to bring ten more children into the world knowing that unfortunate events often happen to righteous people (42:13). In sum, while reading the Book of Job, it is easy to become frustrated by concentrating on God’s character and the notion of theodicy. Instead, it is more worthwhile to focus on Job’s reactions to the challenges and hardships that God forces upon him. He handles this adversity particularly gracefully—after being tested repeatedly by Satan, God, and his friends, his righteousness never waivers.
Notes:
1. While this paper does not delve into the book’s historical-critical problems, they should be acknowledged as they are quite complex. The main issues raised by modern critical scholarship include the discontinuity of the prose Prologue and Epilogue in the poetic speeches, the originality of the poem in chapter 28 about wisdom, and the question of whether Elihu's speeches and God's second speech are later additions (Cooper 27).
2. The Hebrew word nāšer, found throughout the Old Testament, has traditionally been translated to ‘eagle,’ but in this second divine speech, it more likely refers to a vulture, which like the hawk, is a bird of prey who feeds on the dead (Clines 39n).
3. Scholars debate the identities of the two creatures. Some claim that Behemoth and Leviathan “are mythical monsters of pagan origin” (Wolfers 475), while others state that they are two real creatures: Behemoth is a hippopotamus and Leviathan a crocodile (Clines 40n).
4. God’s second speech can be interpreted another way. God specifically states that He “made [Behemoth and Leviathan] just as [He] made [Job]” (40:15), which means that He enjoys watching innocent men and women suffer (Sawyer 31). By creating Behemoth and Leviathan, He intentionally causes pain and agony in the world, and He seems to feel no regret or guilt over it. In fact, in His speeches to Job He even brags about the monsters, claiming that the creatures are “the first of the great acts of God” (40:19).
5 Whether Job actually curses God or not in the biblical text is debated by many biblical scholars. Some, such as Louis de Bernières in his introduction to the Canongate edition, claim that Satan does win the wager because Job inadvertently curses God when he curses “the day of his birth” (3:1). Other scholars, such as Steinmann and Caesar, argue that Job does not curse God directly: “In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing” (1:22).
Works Cited
Bernières, Louis de. Introduction. The Book of Job: Authorised King James Version, Canongate Books Ltd., 1998, pp. 4-8.
Caesar, Lael O. “Job: Another New Thesis.” Vetus Testamentus, vol. 39, fasc. 4, Oct. 1999, pp. 435-447.
Cooper, Alan. “The Sense of the Book of Job.” Prooftexts, vol. 17, no. 3, Sept. 1997, pp. 227-244.
Clines, David J.A. “Job’s Last Words.” Bible Odyssey,
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/video-gallery/j/jobs-last-words-clines.
Clines, David J.A. Introduction. The Book of Job: The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 726.
Erickson, Amy. “Job’s Last Words.” Bible Odyssey,
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/passages/main-articles/jobs-last-words.aspx.
Glazov, Gregory Yuri. “The Significance of the 'Hand on the Mouth' Gesture in Job XL 4.” Vetus Testamentum, vol. 52, fasc. 1, Jan. 2002, pp. 30-41.
Krüger, Thomas. “Did Job Repent?” Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen, edited by Thomas Krüger, Manfred Oeming, Konrad
Schmid, Christoph Uehlinger, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2007, pp. 217-229.
Kuyper, Lester J. “The Repentance of Job.” Vetus Testamentus, vol. 9, fasc. 1, Jan. 1959, pp. 91-94.
Morriston, Wesley. “God’s Answer to Job.” Religious Studies, vol. 32, no. 3, Sept. 1996, pp. 339-356.
Morrow, William. “Consolation, Rejection, and Repentance in Job 42:6.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 105, no. 2l, June 1986, pp. 211-225.
Muenchow, Charles. “Dust and Dirt in Job 42:6.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 108, no. 4, Winter 1989, pp. 597-611.
Newsom, Carol A. “Job.” Bible Odyssey, https://www.bibleodyssey.org/people/main-articles/job.aspx.
Sawyer, John F. “Job.” The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible, edited by Michael Lieb, Emma Mason, Jonathan Roberts, and Christopher Rowland, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp.753-798.
Scholnick, Sylvia Huberman. “The Meaning of mišpaṫ in the Book of Job.” The Society of Biblical Literature, vol. 101, no. 4, Dec. 1992, pp. 521-529.
Shakespeare, William. King Lear. Edited by Stephen Orgel. Penguin Books, 1999.
Steinmann, Andrew E. “The Structure and Message of the Book of Job.” Vetus Testamentum, vol. 46, fasc. 1, Jan. 1996, pp. 85-100.
The Bible. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, 4th ed., edited by Michael D. Coogan,
Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, Oxford University Press, 2010.
Wiesel, Elie. Messengers of God: Biblical Portraits and Legends. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1976.
Wolfers, David. “The Lord’s Second Speech in the Book of Job.” Vetus Testamentum, vol. 40, fasc. 4, Oct. 1990, pp. 474-499.
For most of its history, the Book of Job has been viewed as an explanation for why the innocent suffer, an interpretation established by the book’s canonicity. However, recent scholarship has led to the questioning of the postulate that the work is canonical, suggesting that it may not adhere to modern, traditional Christian and Jewish notions of the divine (Cooper 227). This unconventional conclusion emerges through two seemingly mutually exclusive ideas in the book: first, Job is innocent of any wrong-doing, which God confirms in the prologue (New Oxford Annotated Bible, Job 1:8); and second, God is just, as Job’s friends argue in the debate (Job 4-11). These two notions seem contradictory because if one is true, the other should be false: if God is just, then Job, an innocent man, should not suffer (Morriston 340-341; Caesar 436; Steinmann 97; Cooper 234-235). Yet both views exist in the biblical reading of the story. This paper attempts to make sense of these two conflicting ideas about God in order to interpret the meaning of the Book of Job as a literary work, setting aside religious understandings as well as all historical-critical problems.1
After reading the frustrating first chapters of the book in which Job’s property is raided, his children and their families are killed, he himself is cursed with a gruesome skin disease, and his friends accuse him of wrongdoing (1:1-37:24), the reader hopes to find some sort of satisfactory answer as to why God succumbs to Satan’s provocation. Unfortunately, when God finally confronts Job “out of the whirlwind” (38:1), He completely ignores Job’s request for a trial, and furthermore, altogether fails to acknowledge or explain why Job has been unnecessarily punished (38:1-41:34). At first glance, it seems that God’s speeches describe the world as a vibrant, beautiful place with moral order. However, a closer look at the animals in it reveals a series of predators, such as the hawk that “soars, and spreads its wings toward the south” (39:26) and the eagle that “from [its nest] spies the prey; its eyes see it from far away” (39:29).2 These animals are birds of prey. They indicate that Job is a part of the natural food chain, and that just as there is no explanation for why predators hunt and eat prey, God can provide no reason for Job’s suffering (Morriston 349). The passage suggests a lack of moral order in the world—the earth is a chaotic place full of animals that eat each other. The exegesis of this first divine speech suggests that there is no specific reason as to why terrible events happen to Job.
God’s second, more complex speech (40:6-41:38) describes two terrifying creatures: Behemoth, a supernatural bull, and Leviathan, a fire-breathing sea serpent.3 The monsters, like the predatory animals in the first speech, are perfect examples of untamed nature and they suggest a chaotic, terrifying world without moral order (Sawyer 34). God describes them as very dangerous, violent creatures. Behemoth’s “bones are tubes of bronze, [and] its limbs like bars of iron” (40:18) while Leviathan is so terrifying that “No one is so fierce as to dare to stir it up” (41:10). God’s question, “Will you even put me in the wrong?” (40:8), indicates that He understands Job’s speeches as criticism of His rule over the earth, as well as a demand for a different world order (Clines 40n), one that creates a safe environment without innocent suffering. God, however, has no plans to change His governance, even if it does leave the world in chaos, so His response is ironic. He plans to let Job attempt to re-order the world by defeating all evil (40:11–13)—that way he will have no reason to complain. He only mentions Behemoth and Leviathan to prove His point: Job cannot even begin to understand the nature of the world. Both creatures are extremely dangerous, and thus to try and capture them is absurd, which proves that Job has no right to question God’s governance. They represent “God’s freedom to refuse rules and rationality and principles of utility” (Clines 40n). Although this speech explains that God has complete control over the universe, it still fails to elucidate why He allows evil and suffering to exist in the world. Moreover, it suggests that God has no reason at all for punishing Job.4
Job responds to God’s two lengthy speeches with a short reply that ends with the phrase, “I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42:6). According to the text’s standard interpretation, although God ignores Job’s request for a trial and offers no direct or satisfying explanation whatsoever for his suffering, Job still accepts and even appreciates the response (Kuyper 94). He comes to the realization that not every world event is determined by divine judgment; many events simply occur at random. God’s speeches describe the world as beautiful and joyful, but a place where fearsome and uncontrollable creatures, such as Behemoth and Leviathan, also exist (Newsom 1; Scholnick 529). When Job finally accepts the reality that the world is not always fair, his anger and resentment are replaced by closure and peace. He serenely accepts God's world as well as his own finitude (Morriston 352); more importantly, as Morriston so eloquently explains, Job comes to understand that God is “an impartial source and preserver of a certain order and balance among all the competing forces of nature, of which human life is only one” (354).
It is necessary to note that Job’s response to God’s speeches is remarkably brief. For thirty-nine chapters, he anxiously waits to confront God, but when God finally does talk directly to Job, He gives him a seemingly off-topic speech about a beautiful and terrifying universe where creatures such as a hippopotamus and crocodile exist. After all Job suffers—the death of his entire family, the obliteration of his home and property, the destruction of his belongings, and the agony from the sores on his body—all God has to offer as consolation in His speeches are meaningless descriptions of the world, like goats on the mountainside and the east wind of the earth (39:1; 38:24). Yet all Job says in return is, “I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42:6). While many popular English translations suggest that Job realizes he is wrong to question God’s motives and actions, there is ambiguity in the text’s original Hebrew that makes the translation of the phrase more complicated. Considering the prologue of the story, which states that Job is upright and virtuous, it seems unlikely that Job would “despise himself” or that he would “repent in dust and ashes.” The entire story exists because Job is innocent, so how could he be repenting? A closer examination of the Hebrew text reveals the difficulty of the book’s language and allows Job’s last words to be interpreted in various ways, many of which contradict the phrase’s typical interpretation. According to Morrow (211), the original Hebrew of 42:6 is:
'al-kēn 'em'as wěnihamtî 'al 'ādpār wā'ēper
The difficulty of the texts begins with the first verb, 'em'as, which means ‘I reject,’ ‘I refuse,’ or ‘I despise.’ This verb needs an object, but unfortunately the Hebrew text provides none, which leaves exactly what Job is rejecting, refusing, or despising unknown. Typical English translations try to make sense of the phrase by saying, “I despise myself.” A second problem comes from the next verb, wěnihamtî, which as many English versions of the Bible state, means ‘I am sorry’ or ‘I repent,’ but also means ‘I am consoled.’ Third, the two final nouns in 42:6, 'ādpār and wā'ēper, which typically translate to “dust and ashes,” are preceded with an ambiguous preposition, 'al, which can mean ‘of,’ ‘upon,’ or ‘about’ (Erickson; Clines, “Job’s Last Words;” Muenchow 597; Morrow 211). Fourth, there is debate about what the words “dust and ashes” mean. The phrase may be metaphorical and refer to death or the human condition as a result of being mortal and thereby insignificant; or the phrase may be literal: Job might be referring to the place he is sitting, “among the ashes” (2:8).
Based on the vagueness of Job’s response, his words can be read in multiple, distinctive ways, and the book fails to end with any sense of closure. God’s speech may cause an interior change in Job; he may submit to God in humility, recognize his own finitude, and embrace his place in the uncontrollable, beautiful world, knowing that not everything in life will be fair: “I despise my words [because I spoke wrongly about You, God] and I repent” (Erickson). Maybe Job reluctantly accepts God’s response and chooses to stop grieving: “I retract my lawsuit against God and I will turn from my grief” (Erickson). Or perhaps Job’s response is just sarcastic, claiming he despises himself simply for dramatic effect: “Whatever, God, You’re all-powerful and I’m a worm” (Erickson). Although these are all possibilities, the closest translation and arguably the best interpretation is that Job completely rejects God’s answer. In the first part of Job’s response, God’s speech is so unsatisfactory that he gives up arguing out of sheer frustration, knowing that God will never acknowledge wrongdoing: “I reject Your response.” In the second part, one of the many meanings of the Hebrew verb wěnihamtî is to be ‘consoled’ or ‘comforted,’ and in the context of the book, this most likely suggests that Job decides to accept the consolation of his friends: “I will be comforted by my friends in these dust and ashes.” In this case, the dust and ashes are literally the ashes that he has been sitting in since the second verse of the story (Clines, “Job’s Last Words”). Together, the best interpretation of Job’s response should be read as: “I reject Your answer, God, but I accept the consolation [of my grief from my friends] in the dust and ashes.”
This view of Job’s response makes God’s speeches seem like monologues designed to distract from the fact that He agreed to torment Job simply because of a wager with Satan (1:9-23; 2:3-6). It moreover suggests that, contrary to the book’s standard interpretation, God is a deity who is not always good, a thought that has likewise echoed throughout pagan and polytheistic literature since Homer, such as the Iliad 19.86-94, and Shakespeare, “Like flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport” (King Lear 4.1.35-36 qtd. in Sawyer 31). God punishes Job, a good, upright person, because of a wager He made with Satan by killing his entire family and giving him an agonizing skin disease—an extreme punishment for a sin Job did not commit. Even the ‘happy ending,’ in which his prosperity is restored, and family replaced (42:7-17), is not convincing enough to indicate that God is fair and just. The atrocity of what Job experiences will never be forgotten—dead children particularly can never be replaced, and it is easy to imagine Job like Rachel, “weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are no more” (New Oxford Annotated Bible, Jer. 31:15 qtd. in Sawyer 35).
The Book of Job’s discussion of innocent and undeserved suffering is universal and timeless while also extremely complex. In part, the book exemplifies that God’s essence is so intangible that conjecture will only lead to distortion and resentment. Simultaneously, it indicates that human suffering, no matter how intense, inconceivable, or unjustifiable, can always be taken with elegance and virtue. From the beginning, Job is put into a horrific situation, with the loss of his family, wealth, and health, all because of a petty wager that God makes with Satan. When Job asks God to explain himself, He dives into a long, oblique lecture that fails to provide any explanation for Job’s unfair punishment. Despite the unsatisfactory answer, Job proves himself to be a strong, persistent person who does not give up so easily. He is a “fierce rebel, the fighter who [dares] to face God and speak up as a free man” (Wiesel 231). Instead of repenting and humiliating himself, Job rejects God’s speeches, and confronts his grief as an “uncompromising and whole man” (Wiesel 229 qtd. in Glazov 33)—he sees that sometimes life is unpredictable and beyond human control. More importantly, he shows that it is possible to be righteous as well blessed (Newsom 1) and does not curse God’s name as Satan predicts when his wealth and family are taken.5 What’s more, even after all of his suffering, Job still sees joy in life, and is willing to bring ten more children into the world knowing that unfortunate events often happen to righteous people (42:13). In sum, while reading the Book of Job, it is easy to become frustrated by concentrating on God’s character and the notion of theodicy. Instead, it is more worthwhile to focus on Job’s reactions to the challenges and hardships that God forces upon him. He handles this adversity particularly gracefully—after being tested repeatedly by Satan, God, and his friends, his righteousness never waivers.
Notes:
1. While this paper does not delve into the book’s historical-critical problems, they should be acknowledged as they are quite complex. The main issues raised by modern critical scholarship include the discontinuity of the prose Prologue and Epilogue in the poetic speeches, the originality of the poem in chapter 28 about wisdom, and the question of whether Elihu's speeches and God's second speech are later additions (Cooper 27).
2. The Hebrew word nāšer, found throughout the Old Testament, has traditionally been translated to ‘eagle,’ but in this second divine speech, it more likely refers to a vulture, which like the hawk, is a bird of prey who feeds on the dead (Clines 39n).
3. Scholars debate the identities of the two creatures. Some claim that Behemoth and Leviathan “are mythical monsters of pagan origin” (Wolfers 475), while others state that they are two real creatures: Behemoth is a hippopotamus and Leviathan a crocodile (Clines 40n).
4. God’s second speech can be interpreted another way. God specifically states that He “made [Behemoth and Leviathan] just as [He] made [Job]” (40:15), which means that He enjoys watching innocent men and women suffer (Sawyer 31). By creating Behemoth and Leviathan, He intentionally causes pain and agony in the world, and He seems to feel no regret or guilt over it. In fact, in His speeches to Job He even brags about the monsters, claiming that the creatures are “the first of the great acts of God” (40:19).
5 Whether Job actually curses God or not in the biblical text is debated by many biblical scholars. Some, such as Louis de Bernières in his introduction to the Canongate edition, claim that Satan does win the wager because Job inadvertently curses God when he curses “the day of his birth” (3:1). Other scholars, such as Steinmann and Caesar, argue that Job does not curse God directly: “In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing” (1:22).
Works Cited
Bernières, Louis de. Introduction. The Book of Job: Authorised King James Version, Canongate Books Ltd., 1998, pp. 4-8.
Caesar, Lael O. “Job: Another New Thesis.” Vetus Testamentus, vol. 39, fasc. 4, Oct. 1999, pp. 435-447.
Cooper, Alan. “The Sense of the Book of Job.” Prooftexts, vol. 17, no. 3, Sept. 1997, pp. 227-244.
Clines, David J.A. “Job’s Last Words.” Bible Odyssey,
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/tools/video-gallery/j/jobs-last-words-clines.
Clines, David J.A. Introduction. The Book of Job: The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 726.
Erickson, Amy. “Job’s Last Words.” Bible Odyssey,
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/passages/main-articles/jobs-last-words.aspx.
Glazov, Gregory Yuri. “The Significance of the 'Hand on the Mouth' Gesture in Job XL 4.” Vetus Testamentum, vol. 52, fasc. 1, Jan. 2002, pp. 30-41.
Krüger, Thomas. “Did Job Repent?” Das Buch Hiob und seine Interpretationen, edited by Thomas Krüger, Manfred Oeming, Konrad
Schmid, Christoph Uehlinger, Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2007, pp. 217-229.
Kuyper, Lester J. “The Repentance of Job.” Vetus Testamentus, vol. 9, fasc. 1, Jan. 1959, pp. 91-94.
Morriston, Wesley. “God’s Answer to Job.” Religious Studies, vol. 32, no. 3, Sept. 1996, pp. 339-356.
Morrow, William. “Consolation, Rejection, and Repentance in Job 42:6.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 105, no. 2l, June 1986, pp. 211-225.
Muenchow, Charles. “Dust and Dirt in Job 42:6.” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 108, no. 4, Winter 1989, pp. 597-611.
Newsom, Carol A. “Job.” Bible Odyssey, https://www.bibleodyssey.org/people/main-articles/job.aspx.
Sawyer, John F. “Job.” The Oxford Handbook of the Reception History of the Bible, edited by Michael Lieb, Emma Mason, Jonathan Roberts, and Christopher Rowland, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp.753-798.
Scholnick, Sylvia Huberman. “The Meaning of mišpaṫ in the Book of Job.” The Society of Biblical Literature, vol. 101, no. 4, Dec. 1992, pp. 521-529.
Shakespeare, William. King Lear. Edited by Stephen Orgel. Penguin Books, 1999.
Steinmann, Andrew E. “The Structure and Message of the Book of Job.” Vetus Testamentum, vol. 46, fasc. 1, Jan. 1996, pp. 85-100.
The Bible. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, 4th ed., edited by Michael D. Coogan,
Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, Oxford University Press, 2010.
Wiesel, Elie. Messengers of God: Biblical Portraits and Legends. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1976.
Wolfers, David. “The Lord’s Second Speech in the Book of Job.” Vetus Testamentum, vol. 40, fasc. 4, Oct. 1990, pp. 474-499.