I. Introduction 

The book of Job is commonly viewed and analyzed as a test of Job’s integrity and loyalty. Clearly that it is but it also presents another test, perhaps even more of a compelling one, a test of God himself -- a test of his justice and goodness¹. Perhaps the ultimate focus of this book is not Job but God.

That the book of Job is theocentric is evidenced by a rather general assumption² that its purpose is to present a theodicy³ -- the justification of the ways of God to humans. Job’s case raises the question of divine justice in the most striking possible way. "How can such a situation be reconciled with divine justice and benevolent providence?"⁴ Whether the book provides a reasoned theodicy or not does not negate its search for such.⁵ The emphasis on Job’s suffering in spite of his essential goodness forces us to focus on God and raise questions about his justice.

The book’s formalizing of the problem and its response to it is without parallel in the Hebrew Bible. No other book of the Bible, with the possible exception of Qoheleth, has such open, frank, and conflicting discussions of the character of God. No other biblical book contains such outspoken criticism of God.

While the book carefully -- even tediously⁶ -- establishes the integrity⁷ of Job so that it is never a serious issue of the book, it appears not to be so conclusive about God’s integrity. While Job and his friends concur relative to God’s greatness, they radically differ relative to his justice. God has marvelous creating and sustaining power but seems to do nothing -- at least not consistently -- to prevent or redress wrongs -- to administer justice.

The book, rather than affirming the goodness of God may be seen as challenging it. While the comforters argue for a just God, Job challenges it and there is no formal establishment of God’s integrity.

Further, while Job’s test is finally settled -- he remains faithful and does not curse God -- there are still questions left relative to God. The great concern of this book about God’s justice continues after Job’s case has been settled. 

II. Presentation of the Issue

It is in the graphic anthropomorphic narrative sections of the book -- the Prologue and Epilogue -- where the basis for questioning of God’s character is found. While the cycle of dialogue which follow are necessarily oblivious of the heavenly schemes of chapters 1 and 2 they are only made possible by the corresponding earthly scene of these chapters and while Job and his three friends struggle in ignorance we the readers contextualize the discussion within the prose sections of this book.

The prologue narrative which clearly indicates that Job is on trial, subtly -- and sometimes not so subtly -- insists that God is on trial. Perhaps it is a matter of perspective.

From the viewpoint of the divine council it is a test of Job⁸. He is the focal point of the council’s discussion. But from the human perspective -- from an earthly perspective -- it looks quite differently as if God himself is on trial. The scene on earth features the victim Job and his friends in dialogue while the scene in heaven features the all-powerful and insistent God in meeting with his servitors⁹. While Job appears in a most favorable light in the Prologue and at least manages to hold his own in the dialogue with the comforters, God is portrayed in a rather distressing way, being cornered, bamboozled into a devilish action which it would seem that he never anticipated and one which he on his own would not have instigated¹⁰.

Job, in the Prologue, is portrayed as complete and well-adjusted to his social environment. Even after the contrived disasters happen and Job is sitting among the ashes, his wife acknowledges that he continues to be complete -- to be sufficient -- even though she is convinced that it means nothing to God. Job is also seen here in the opening chapters as moral and devout. Not surprisingly he fears God. He recognizes that he needs God.

While Job’s needing God is not surprising, startlingly God appears to need Job. He needs his worship, his proper behavior, and his loyalty. He is charged with buying Job’s piety and faithfulness. It would seem that God needs to be affirmed and so he blesses Job abundantly but at a price.

The prologue also seems to suggest that while God holds Job to a rigid standard of conduct, he is free to do as he pleases or needs to do.

A further assessment of God in the prologue seems to allow that God does not know the outcome of Job’s sufferings. By entering into the wager God concedes that he is not all-knowing. In the words of Freedman:

The prologue leaves us with a fundamental question: Should God be judged on the basis of how well humans do? Is this a proper criterion by which to judge God?

The epilogue is perhaps no less troubling relative to God’s character than the prologue.

God who appeared to Job in a storm¹² now appears angry and insists that the three comforters (the ones who had defended him) were in the wrong while Job (the one who had challenged him) was right¹³. In the words of Pope:

Perhaps the issue is mitigated somewhat by Delitzsch who notes that "right" includes objective as well as subjective truth¹⁵. Job was right in holding to his innocence while the three were wrong because they could not accept Job’s established innocence, given their closed system of doctrine.

But it is still striking that the ones who most vehemently defended God were the ones who are declared in the wrong. Is this a concession of guilt on the part of Yahweh? Further the sacrifice demanded is rather large, indicating a serious offense¹⁶.

The issue is further compounded by Yahweh, in the act of restoration, "giving Job twice as much as he had before."¹⁷ Such compensation over and above simple restoration is demanded of the thief¹⁸. Job had charged God with confiscating his property, with taking it illegally¹⁹ So again, is this a concession of inappropriate activity by God? Or do we simply have here God’s abundant grace?²⁰

Job is vindicated but is it at the expense of God?

Important in these narrative sections are the significant points which the writer establishes about God. These are crucial to the consideration of God’s justice.

God is presented as sovereign. In the opening chapters God presides over the nameless angels²¹ who "present themselves," i.e., literally "stand over" as servants stand before the seated master²². Obviously God is not one of them but is clearly distinct from and over the angels. While not called a son of God The Satan is among them. He challenges the disinterest of Job’s religion but cannot take any action until authorized by God. It is God who allows Job to suffer. This is clear to the reader but not to Job for obvious reasons. Nowhere other than here in the prologue is The Satan referred to in this book. When Job speaks of his suffering he invariably assigns it to God.

The above observations are critical to the question of divine justice. The absence of other gods (polytheism) and the absence of an evil being equal to God (dualism) immediately eliminates these as possible explanations for Job’s sufferings. This exclusivity of Yahweh results here as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in his being the effective force in all matters.

Since this singularity of God should have meant coherence and consistency of purpose, issues arose in monotheism which would not have been found in polytheism. As Gottwald observes: "In the ancient Near East, various aspects of power, justice, and mercy can be exhibited in one or another deity, emphasizing now this or now that attribute or activity and even uniting them momentarily in one deity in formal analogy with Yahweh, without necessarily bringing to the fore the question of how the sum total of divine manifestations are to be understood. In Israel, however, the fact that these manifestations exhibit the attributes and purposes of a single god pushes the question of the coherence of what is revealed farther into the foreground of communal consciousness. On the one hand, this means a heightened sense within the Israelite society of being confronted by a consistently purposing and revealing god; and on the other hand it means that serious problems of theological comprehension and of communal praxis and self-understanding are provoked in Israel when there is a prolonged absence of divine manifestations where they are expected, or when natural and historico-social developments unexpectedly contradict the understood purposes and attributes of deity. This opens the road to that consuming passion for theodicy²³.

God is seen as active in the world. Not only does he know what is happening on earth he is keenly interested, taking pleasure in Job’s commitment. In fact, it is this awareness and satisfaction which leads to the wager²⁴.

The fact that God permits The Satan to function in the world also reflects his involvement with the world. Clearly in the mind of the writer/s God has not absented himself, he has not abdicated. Having created the world and being responsible for its management, he takes the world seriously. While he has a responsibility to the world of nature and animals, his primary occupation is with humans²⁵.

The above observations relative to God’s involvement with the world are also critical to the question of divine justice. There is no tendency in Job towards deism. In contrast to Psalm 14 where the fool does not sense any need to reckon with God, where God for all practical purposes does not matter, the book of Job clearly reflects an active God who is responsible for the events which happen. This involvement intensifies the issue of divine justice.

III. The Dialogical Response

Job and his friends are unaware of the events described in the prologue. While insisting on his righteousness Job does not know that God reckoned him as righteous. The comforters, on the other hand, deny Job’s righteousness, also not knowing that God considered Job righteous. The events of the prologue must be kept from Job in particular for the proposed test to be valid. Given the assessment of Job’s character found in the prologue the comforters with their traditional theology are at best strawmen. Their ideas are in a de facto way dismissed before they are given.

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, well steeped in conventional theology²⁶, insist that God has given Job exactly what he deserves. They explain Job’s sufferings by a cause and effect relationship. To them the issue is not God’s justice but Job’s sins. Suffering does not happen unless sin has been committed. So their focus is on Job.

The causal relationship enables the comforters to assume Job’s guilt from his suffering. In the words of Eliphaz: "Think now, who that was innocent even perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same."²⁷ Job’s sufferings are clear evidence that he is guilty of sin even as his children’s deaths are proof of their sin.²⁸

While the comforters are content initially to sustain Job’s guilt by virtue of his suffering they are forced finally to catalog his sins. While Job at one time probably shared a common theological position with his friends, his recent experiences cause him to reassess his theology. As a result the friends’ contention of his guilt based upon his suffering is not convincing to Job. This leads to the listing of Job’s sins by Eliphaz.²⁹

The listed sins are those most likely associated with the rich and powerful and hence allegedly practiced by Job during his earlier successful years. He is accused primarily of social sins: taking away the garments of the needy for their inability to pay their mortgage³⁰ withholding water from the weary and food from the hungry³¹ and oppressing the widow and orphan.³²

As mentioned above, Job is oblivious of God’s positive assessment of his character. While his theology suggested guilt, his empirical information argued otherwise. He never once questioned the source of his suffering. He believed that God was punishing him but without reason. Thus he charges God with injustice, with reaching his verdict of guilty without allowing Job to speak on his behalf.

Desiring justice Job wants to enter litigation with God but senses the impossibility of this since God is "not a man" as he is.³³ Given his background, his functioning in the judicial system of his community³⁴, it is not surprising that he would consider litigation. While at first this seemed impossible his continued suffering and the repetitious charges of his friends necessitated such a move. He finally identifies God as his opponent³⁵ and states that he has prepared his case.³⁶

God’s response to Job’s challenge is not immediate. No litigation results even though he has pressed charges against God.³⁷ Such legal procedure would cast Job in the role of plaintiff and God in the role of defendant.

So far in our consideration of Job’s pursuit for divine justice our legal metaphor has seen Job as the plaintiff and God as the defendant. This is indeed the arrangement followed by many scholars.³⁸ But as Dick cautions we need to be careful " in sharply delineating the roles of plaintiff and defendant, for ancient documents are often unclear in distinguishing these relationships, and too rigid imposition of this modern distinction might be anachronistic."³⁹

Further complicating the issue is the fact that God is involved and understandably alternately assumes different roles. This can be demonstrated by Job’s desire for an umpire⁴⁰ a witness⁴¹ and a vindicator.⁴² God seems to be designated by all these terms. Even though Job knows that God is also the accuser, the judge and the executioner, he nevertheless appeals to God and thus is appealing from God to God.⁴³

Granted these difficulties, Dick is nevertheless correct in seeing Job cast in the role of a defendant.⁴⁴ Job’s speeches indicate that he believes God has developed a case against and found him guilty. He has already been judged in some previous unaccountable and unannounced juridical proceedings. There is simply no other way for him to account for his losses than to recognize them as punishment.

The comforters also understandably see Job in the role of the defendant. They too believe that Job has already been judged and found guilty. While Job struggles with this verdict the comforters are convinced that justice has been done.⁴⁵ Elizhaz in his concluding speech reminds Job of this divine litigation and defends the verdict by itemizing Job’s sins which led to this judgment.⁴⁶

Convinced of his innocence Job demands a writ of particulars, suggesting that God has initiated proceedings against him. In 13:23 Job requests that the nature and number of charges against him be specified.⁴⁷ He is convinced that he is not guilty of any crime.⁴⁸ But there is no response from the Lord.⁴⁹

This silence of the Lord drives Job to extreme action -- the use of the oath of clearance. This oath was taken by the accused of the Old Testament but was only invoked after all rational means of proof had been exhausted.⁵⁰ This use of non-rational proof brought the deity into the process which is precisely what Job wanted.⁵¹

When complete the oath expressed self-imprecation. For this reason generally only the protasis (If I have done X) was employed with the apodosis (Then may Y happen to me) omitted. The fact therefore that Job used so many of these oaths and completed several of them indicates the desperateness of his condition.

In this same chapter with these oaths of clearance Job registers his formal request for a writ of particulars: "Oh, that I had one to hear me! Here is my signature! Let the almighty answer me! Oh that I had the indictment written by my adversary"⁵² Dick sees this request as a legal appeal of a defendant for a formal hearing through the assemblage of a tripartite judicial board.

The "one to hear" Dick identifies as the judge, the "adversary" as God, thus casting Job as the defendant.⁵³ The role of the judge here is to force the adversary to produce written charges.⁵⁴ Job wants to know what his crime is. He believes that he will be able to prove his innocence.⁵⁵

In his desperation Job not only used the oath of clearance but he also employed the institution of the hue and cry (vox oppressorum).⁵⁶ This was a basic cry for justice and assistance by the dispossessed and oppressed. Anyone hearing such a cry was obligated to respond. Job made such a cry, obviously wanting a divine response: "O earth, cover not my blood, and let my outcry find no resting place."⁵⁷ Job must have had in mind the phrase "Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground."⁵⁸

All of these efforts of Job to gain a response from God indicate the centrality of divine justice in this book.

 IV. The Divine Response

The issue of divine justice is a critical issue in the Yahweh speeches at the end of the book.⁵⁹ Failure to recognize this has resulted in charges that these chapters are at best irrelevant to the suffering of Job and to the book itself. To be sure these chapters do not provide Job with the bill of particulars that he had demanded. Nor do they provide him opportunity to question Yahweh. Earlier Job had requested: "Then call, and I will answer; or let me speak and do thou reply to me."⁶⁰ Such a choice was not available to him. Yahweh did all the questioning.

The legal nature of this divine encounter is stressed at the beginning of both speeches: "Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me."⁶¹ Even as Jeremiah had been instructed to gird up his loins⁶² in preparation for a legal encounter with Israel so now Job is told to ready himself for a legal encounter with Yahweh. "To gird up the loins" may be an idiom for the belt-wrestling ordeal which was used at Nuzi for settlement of a case where there was conflicting testimony.⁶³

In these speeches Yahweh refers to mišpat only once⁶⁴ but the concept of divine justice is clearly central to these speeches. This has been the issue of the book and here in its culmination it does not seem likely that it would be ignored. What then does Yahweh say about divine justice?

A. He denies justice.

Tsevat claims that the speeches of Yahweh demonstrate that justice is a human convention and works well in controlling conduct within society but it does not function in the physical-ethical world. He states: "No retribution is provided for in the blueprint of the world, nor does it exist anywhere in it. None in planned for the nonhuman world. Divine justice is not an element of reality. It is a figment existing only in the misguided philosophy with which you have been inculcated. The world in which you and the friends are spun is a dream. Wake up, Job!"⁶⁵

B. He redefines justice.

This position, particularly as advanced by Buber, stresses the difference between human justice and divine justice: "Not the divine justice, which remains hidden, but a divine justice, namely that manifest in creation. The creation of the world is justice, not a recompensing and compensating justice, but a distributing, a giving justice. God the Creator bestows upon each what belongs to him, upon each thing and being, insofar as He allows it to become entirely itself . . . Designedly man is lacking in this presentation of heaven and earth, in which man is shown the justice that is greater than his, and is shown that he with his justice, which intends to give to everyone what is due him, is called only to emulate the divine justice which gives to everyone what he is."⁶⁶

Von Rad’s approach is similar as he maintains that God can root justice where he pleases: "It is not as if God were blind to some norm of right, so that there was, as it were, an umpire who, in case of a dispute between God and man, could engage both to observe the rule (Job 11:32f). Yahweh is so full and powerful that he himself determines what is right, and is always in the right against man."⁶⁷ He continues: " . . . something very positive is revealed about the relationship of God to His creation. It is, doubtless, marvellous and incomprehensible . . . All this allows man [sic] to see that God turns a smiling face to His creation . . . whole of creation is dependent upon Him . . . purpose of the divine answer in the book of Job is to glorify God’s justice towards His creatures . . . this justice of God cannot be comprehended by man [sic]; it can only be adored."⁶⁸

Scholnick’s position is not too radically different from the above positions. Her main stress is that divine justice is not limited to jurisprudence but also includes sovereignty: "Yahweh’s appearance before the hero and his friends signals his acceptance of the challenge for litigation. But in his testimony, rather than pressing charges or presenting a defense, God focuses on the more fundamental question of the nature of divine justice. Excluding any mention of man’s system of justice through litigation, he speaks instead of his own authority over the universe, which he labels mišpat in 40:8. His concern for Job is expressed through teaching him that justice goes beyond the human legal system to include a system of divine kingship.⁶⁹

Scholnick, while recognizing that the majority of the occurrences of the root pt in the Hebrew Bible fall into the forensic category, notes that there are many that refer to governance such as the reference to the king in I Samuel 8:9.⁷⁰ Here the jurisdiction of the king allows him to draft, to enslave, and to appropriate property.

While the writer of Job uses both meanings for mišp t, in the speeches of Yahweh the emphasis is clearly upon sovereignty. This accounts for his treatment of nature. Yahweh is the creator and the sustainer of nature. He is indeed the Ruler of the world. Thus he rebukes Job for challenging his mišpat, his sovereignty: "Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?"⁷¹

As the monarch described in I Samuel 8:10-15 so Yahweh has the right to appropriate property as he chooses without the consent of the owner. Such appropriations need not be seen as punishment. Yahweh is suggesting to Job that his loss of wealth, family, and health is not divine punishment but divine appropriation.

 V. Conclusion

The above treatment of divine justice provides us with insights which enable us to maintain God’s sovereignty while not undercutting the integrity and accountability of humans and their communal structures.

The following conclusions can be drawn from the Yahweh speeches:⁷²

In such an understanding God remains sovereign without negating the wonderful creatures that we are and without discharging us from responsibility and accountability.

Copyright by author.

1. David Noel Freedman, "Is It Possible to Understand the Book of Job?" BR (April 1988), 31-32. James Gustafson observes "God . . . is in the details." James M. Gustafson, "A Response to the Book of Job," in The Voice From the Whirlwind, eds. Leo G. Purdue and W. Clark Gilpin (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992), 183

2. Not all scholars view Job as a theodicy. Terrien argues that the essential and primary question of Job is not theodicy but true worship. Samuel Terrien, Job - The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954) III, 913-914. Fohrer contends that the issue is not an explanation for undeserved sufferings but rather the question of how a sufferer should conduct himself. George Fohrer, Introduction To The Old Testament. Translated by David Green (New York: Abingdon Press, 1965), 334. Andersen notes the legitimacy of developing a theodicy but denies that Job does such. Francis I. Andersen, Job -- Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 64. Terry Tilley adds: "Serious readers of Job have a choice. They can either read Job as silencing the voice of the suffering or allow Job to silence claims about how God and suffering are related. The book of Job displays the cost of providing the 'systematic totalization' a theodicy requires: silencing the voice of the sufferer, even if she/he curses the day she/he was born and accuses God of causing human suffering, Job shows the theodicists' place is in the company of comforters, 'delivering' their answers to those who are plagued with questions . . . . The comforters are 'academics' in the worst sense of that term, ineffective observers of the terrors of human suffering, or tormenters who intensify that suffering by the ways they respond to suffering. Job reveals the worth of such academic responses to real evil. Perhaps the better alternative is for the reader to remain silent." Terry Tilley, "God and The Silencing of Job" (Modern Theology 5 [Apr. 1989]), 267-68. Douglas Hall cautions: "The poem of Job is a paradigmatic and unforgettable grappling with the problem of God and human suffering because it is not theoretical, but a drama in which the identity of all those who put the question, especially Job himself, is revealed in detail. It is because Job is who he is that the question is put in the way that it is put, and that 'the answer' must be given in the form in which it is given.

No human question is ever asked (and no answer given!) in a historical vacuum; it is asked in a specific time and place by specific persons. With certain kinds of questions this contextual dimension may not be so significant; but with our present question it is of primary importance." Douglas J. Hall, God and Human Suffering: An Exercise in the Theology of the Cross (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986), 24.

3. The English word "theodicy" comes from two Greek words: Theos (God) and Dike (justice). Brueggemann defines theodicy from a sociological perspective: "The practical effect is that theodicy is a theory of power about who makes decisions and who obeys them, who administers and controls good, who has access to them and on what terms. Or said another way, theodicy is an agreement about world-definition, about who gets to have a say, about who the authoritative interpreters are, and whose definitions and interpretations are 'true' in this community. Theodicy is about the legitimacy of one's view of the world." Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms: A Theological Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 170-171.

4. Marvin Pope, Job - The Anchor Bible. (New York: DoubleDay, 1973), LXXIII.

5. Pope insists that the book of Job fails to give a clear and definite theodicy. Ibid., LXXIII. Tsevat, however, argues: "were the book to contain no answer, we should be faced with a literary work posing a problem of the greatest moment without offering or even attempting a solution. The reader would be cut loose from his moorings of tradition and faith and left adrift. The Book of Job without an answer to its problem would constitute a literary torso, an anthology of verbalized doubts; it would betray an utter lack of appreciation of the controlling conceptions which are everywhere in evidence in the work to allow this judgment to stand." Matitiahu Tsevat, The Meaning of The Book of Job (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1980), 80. Hauerwas disagrees: "To make the book of Job, and especially God's answer to Job out of the whirlwind, an answer to the problem of evil is to try to make the book answer a question it was not asking." Stanley Hauerwas, Naming The Silences (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 45.

6. The author characterizes Job's integrity (1:1), the Lord affirms it twice (1:8, 2:3), The Satan does not challenge it (1:19), and Job's wife accepts it (2:7).

7. Job's goodness is expressed by four characterizations: He is said to be complete, straight, pious, and moral.

8. 1:6-12; 2:1-6.

9. 1:6; 2:1.

10. While the Lord calls attention to Job, it is The Satan who suggests the trial (1:9-11; 2:4-5).

11. Freedman, op. cit., 32.

12. 38:1.

13. 42:7-9.

14. Pope, op. cit., 350.

15. Franz Delitzsch and C. F. Keil, Old Testament Commentaries - Job (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., N.D.), III, 777-778.

16. Pope, op. cit., 350.

17. 42:10. All quotations of Scripture are from the NRSV.

18. Exodus 22:7.

19. In 19:7 Job charges God with h m s - a technical term for wrongdoing in Exodus 23:1 and Deuteronomy 19:16. In Proverbs 4:17 this word is used to designate what is gained by illegal means. Scholnick states: "Job may well use this term to charge God with unlawful seizure of his property." Sylvia H. Scholnick, "The Meaning of Mišpat In The Book of Job," JBL (1982), 525.

20. Moshe Greenberg cautions that the restoration of job's wealth should not be seen as vulgar or inappropriate. He states, "In its reversal, the conclusion is of a piece with the rest of the book, so consistently subverting expectations and traditional values . . . God reverses his misfortunes and smiles on him to the end of his life." Moshe Greenberg, "Job," in The Literary Guide to The Bible, eds. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode (Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 1987), 300-301.

21. Even the word satan here is probably more of a designation than a name. His role or function is that of an accuser.

22. H. H. Rowley, Job -- The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), 21. Pope suggests that the idea here is angels' positioning themselves as courtiers before a king. Pope, op. cit., 9.

23. Normal K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979), 687. It needs to be noted that while the site of this book and the homes of the participants are not located the writer/s are reflecting an Israelite perspective. While the dating of Job is difficult it probably was written during the time of the monarchy, when as Gottwald observes, the coherence of the divine manifestation was a problem. It was perhaps such a climate that gave rise to this book. David R. Blumenthal sees theodicy as the Achilles' heel of monotheistic faith. David R. Blumenthal, Facing the Abuse of God: A Theology of Protest (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 165

24. Throughout the poetic dialogue Job is aware of the divine activity. He states that God has zeroed in on him, creating his suffering. Nowhere is this better observed than in 7:17-18 where Job expresses a parody of Psalm 8;4. The psalmist is honored by God's attention; Job is distressed by it. Job argues that God makes too much of man, devoting too much attention to him.

25. In the Yahweh speeches it is noted that the Lord is creator of the earth (38:4-7), of the sea (38:8-11), and of time (38:12-15). He is the master of land and sky (38:16-38) and the protector of wild animals (38:39-39:30). Interestingly, no direct reference is made to humans in these speeches.

26. The Deuteronomic idea of history was that the nation always got what it deserved (Deut. 28). In Judges the nation is subjugated or delivered, depending upon its relationship to the Lord. This collective idea is individualized by Job's friends. This personal application of retribution is one of the factors in seeing Job as late Old Testament thought.

27. 4:7-8.

28. 8:4.

29. 22:6-9.

30. 22:6. cf.. Exodus 22:26; Deuteronomy 24:10. Denied by Job 31:19.

31. 22:7. cf.. Deuteronomy 15:7-8. Denied by Job 31:17.

32. 22:9. cf... Exodus 22:22, Deuteronomy 10:18. Denied by Job 31:16.

33. 9:32. Here the idiom bô'bemišpat is used. While it literally means "go to the place of judgment" it is better translated here "enter litigation." A similar meaning is found in Psalm 143:2 where the possibility of appearing before God is accepted. Scholnick, op. cit., 524.

34. 15:7; 29:12; 31:21.

35. 13:3.

36. 13:18

37. 19:7

38. Cf. B. Gemser, "The Rib or Controversy -- Pattern in Hebrew Mentality," VT Sup 3 (1955), 135.

39. Michael Brennan Dick, "The Legal Metaphor In Job 31," CBQ (1979), 37-50.

40. 9:33. The term "umpire" is seen by some as a "negotiator" or "reconciler" who brings quarreling people together, one who would "lay his hand upon . . . both" as a common friend (Andersen, op. cit., 151). However, môkîah is better rendered "arbiter" (AV has archaic word "daysman"). When used with bîn as in Genesis 31:37 (cf. Job 16:21) môkîah is a legal term and seems to refer to a judge. The location of the function of the môkîah "in the gate" demonstrates that its domain is in jus civile.

41. 16:19. Here God is clearly referred to since shed blood cries out to him (Gen. 4:10).

42. 19:25. While the term gô'el designates the "redeemer" and hence one who does not necessarily function within the court setting, when used of God it can suggest a defender of justice (Proverbs 23:10-11). Further, in the Job passage here the gô'el is said to "stand" (qûm), suggesting a court setting (cf. Psalm 1:5) where the witness stands to testify.

43. The appeal from God to God may reflect a struggle between two differing conceptions of God in Job's mind (Rowley, op. cit., 121).

44. Dick, op. cit., 38

45. 8:3.

46. 22:3-9

47. The desire for precision can be seen in Job's use of three words for sin: 'awon meaning to err, hata'a meaning to miss the mark and pesa' meaning to rebel.

49. 16:7.

49. 30:20.

50. There is no evidence in the Old Testament that a witness ever took an oath. Hans Jochen Boecker, Law and The Administration Of Justice In The Old Testament And Ancient East. Translated by Jeremy Mosier. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1980), 35.

51. Given the non-rational character of the oath of clearance it is not surprising to note that the provenance of it was the cult rather than the local court (Num. 5:12-28). This does not mean that the trial became exclusively a cultic process. Rather it is likely that the priests functioned in conjunction with the local court.

52. 31:35.

53. Dick, op. cit., 48049. Blank also argues that the oaths of clearance in this chapter can be seen as a part of Job's formal petition. S. H. Blank, "An Effective Literary Device in Job XXXI," JJS (1951), 105-107.

54. In Hebrew trials the witnesses and the judge were not necessarily different people. This was also true of the plaintiff and judge. The accuser could pronounce sentence as Judge with others (cf. Jeremiah 26). Boecker, op. cit., 34-35.

55. 31:36-37.

56. Psalm 30:9-10.

57. 16:18.

58. Genesis 4:10

59. The Elihu speeches are omitted in this paper. His role in the book is uncertain. Protagonist? Adjudicator? Further, his contribution is seen as inferior to and duplicative of the three comforters. One theme does stand out in his speeches and may account for their presence in the book -- the vindication of divine justice.

60. 13:22.

61. 38:3; 40:7.

62. Jeremiah 1:17.

63. Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature (Rome: Pontificum Institute Biblicum, 1949), 134. cf. HUCA XXIII:1 (1950f)

63. 131-136.

64. 40:8.

65. Tsevat, op. cit., 100. Langdon Gilkey states: "The order of nature . . . is here distinguished from, in fact separated from, justice, the rule of natural law in the cosmos from the rule of moral justice in history." Langdon Gilkey, "Power, Order Justice and Redemption - Theological Comments on Job," in The Voice From the Whirlwind, eds. Leo G. Perdue and W. Clark Gilpin (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992), 159.

66. Martin Buber, The Prophetic Faith (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949) 194-195.

67. Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962) vol. I, 413.

68. Ibid., 417.

69. Scholnick, op. cit., 521-522.

70. Ibid., 522.

71. 40:8.

72. Obviously, the whole book is ultimately involved in the Yahweh speeches. It is difficult to isolate them totally. But it would seem that the answer of this book to Job's suffering is not to be found in the culmination of responses. Rather it is to be found in the culmination, at the end of the book and from the mouth of the most trusted and knowledgeable character -- Yahweh himself.

73. Interestingly, the Yahweh speeches only deal with involvement with non-human creation.

Return to Carl Schultz's Links

 Houghton College Home Page

E-mail to cschultz@houghton.edu