Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job

[Robert Sutherland]

In the ancient biblical Book of Job, I think Job puts God on trial as the author of some undeserved evil in the world and refuses to acquit him.

What are your thoughts?

 

[iBrian]

Doesn't Job staunchly defend God? cf "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away".

When I last read that book, I actually found myself agreeing with some of the other commentators in the work.

I note that is it often taken by some to be a eral and historical series of events, though I take it something more like an essay - exploring the intricacies of faith, rather than a narrative account of "real" events.

PS: Moved to "Monotheism" for comment.

 

[Mus Zibii]

The book of Job is my favorite. I always thought it was horrible that a God would do that to a faithful follower. But Job's take on it smacks more of reality than the synopsis would suggest. He doesn't take his suffering lightly, but his overall outlook is, 'the Lord giveth, taketh'. Christians and Muslims moan about the story of Job, because God is made to look irrational and limited, but can anyone deny the truth that bad things just simply happen to good people without obvious meaning?

 

[Robert Sutherland]

I actually think Job's refusal to acquit God is consistent with a deep moral integrity and a nuanced submission.


Widely praised as one of the greatest books ever written, The Book of Job is a theodicy, an attempt to morally justify the ways of God to man. It is a most provocative theodicy for it is the story of the most righteous man on earth putting God on trial for crimes against humanity and refusing to acquit him.


To the question of why there is evil in the world, The Book of Job offers a non-traditional answer.

(a) God created a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering in order the make the highest form of human love possible: a completely selfless love of man for God. Selfishness corrupts selfless love. If human beings know with certainty that God rewards those who love him, then they will serve God for what they can get from him. Undeserved evil is morally necessary in order to bring the existence of God into doubt and to sever any connection between righteousness and reward.


(b) God cannot reveal this explanation for evil in this life without defeating his own purpose in the creation of the world and the creation of man.


(c) God expects man to challenge him for the creation of such a world. Prima facie, it is an act of injustice to impose evil for reasons other than punishment or character development. The undeserved evil God sends is more punishment than any man deserves. And the undeserved evil God sends destroys character more often than not. Human beings have a moral duty to challenge God for such evil. They have a natural need to know and a natural right to receive the explanation for evil in world. God expects human beings to stand up to him. They sin if they either prematurely condemn or prematurely acquit God for sending evil into the world. They must wait for the answer that only God can give.


(d) God will reveal that answer on the Day of the Final Judgment. At that time, God will resurrect all human beings to give them that answer. God will grant all human beings a special grace to understand the necessity and sufficiency of undeserved evil. God is causally responsible for the evil in the world, but not morally blameworthy for it. At that time, all will know and understand God’s purpose in the creation of a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering. And God will then judge all human beings on the selflessness of their love for God.

This Hegelian theodicy in The Book of Job has two real advantages over the traditional Augustinian and Irenean theodices which draw heavily on The Book of Genesis and The Epistles of Paul.

(a) It offers an explanation for existence of undeserved evil in the world. Augustinian theodicies strain and break in their attempt to attribute all the natural and moral evils of the world to the act of a single man. Irenean theodicies strain and break in the face of evil that is so great it destroys character more often than not.

(b) And it offers an explanation for God’s general practice of non-intervention in the world to prevent evil. Augustinian and Irenean theodices correctly posit the importance of freewill, but serious stumple over the fact that the existence of freewill is consistent with a knowledge of God and God’s intervention in the world. Free-will itself does not require God’s non-intervention. However, a particular form of free-will, a completely selfless love of man for God, probably does require God’s non-intervention.

The Book of Job presents a new and engaging perspective based entirely on the existence of undeserved evil and a moral requirement that God not intervene to disclose the reason for evil in this world.


The Book of Job presents that philosophical answer in poetry and prose through the vehicle of drama. As drama, The Book of Job is understandably a legal drama.http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=11954#_edn1 The moral issues of theodicy are easily translated into a legal framework of duties and rights. In fact, The Book of Job consists of a number of overlapping and interlocking trials. God puts Job on trial. Satan puts God on trial. God puts Job on trial a second time. Job’s friends put Job on trial. Job puts his friends on trial. Everything builds to the climactic moment when Job puts God himself on trial and refuses to acquit him.

(continued on next post)

 

[Robert Sutherland]

Many scholars find the legal metaphor of an Oath of Innocence inappropriate, though for different reasons.

Some liberal scholarshttp://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=11954#_edn1 opt for an aesthetic, not a moral, resolution of the question of evil in the world. They find a sublime beauty in God’s review of the animal and physical worlds, Behemoth and Leviathan. And it is certainly there. But that is all they find. They find no suggestions of a moral purpose in God’s creation and control of evil. Indeed, they feel none could be forthcoming. God is beyond good and evil so no moral resolution is possible. Since no moral resolution is possible, a legal metaphor such as a lawsuit dramatizing the moral question is inappropriate. They interpret Job to understand that position. And they interpret him to retract the lawsuit in its entirety. They interpret the lawsuit metaphor to be inappropriate because there are no answers to the moral question of evil in the world. To the extent there is a scholarly consensus on The Book of Job and there probably is not such a consensus, this is the majority reading.


This author feels such liberal scholars miss a moral resolution for five reasons.


(a) First, they fail to give adequate weight to Satan’s first speech in heaven setting out the moral solution. Selfless love is the reason God chooses to create a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering for Job and by implication, for us. This sets the entire plot in motion. Their resolution however leaves this important point hanging such that the beginning and ending are completely disjointed.

(b) Second, they misinterpret Job’s struggle with God to be a request for a restoration of his former position, rather than a request to know the reason behind evil in the world. As such, they see the moral issue Job raises to be nothing more than a retributive version of justice whereby righteousness is rewarded. This is not the moral right Job raises in his Oath of Innocence. The moral right is the right to know the reason behind evil in the world.

(c) Third, they fail to appreciate the moral restrictions under which God has to operate. God cannot reveal any moral answers directly without defeating his very purpose in the creation and control of evil. As a result, they miss the suggestions of moral purpose in God’s two speeches and the inferences God would have Job draw.


(d) Fourth, they fail to fully appreciate the legal dynamics of the enforcement mechanism of Job’s Oath of Innocence. In particular, they fail to appreciate the distinction between causal responsibility and moral blameworthiness. Thus, they do not understand God’s comments concerning vindication and condemnation in his first speech to Job. And they do not understand Job’s hesitation to proceed beyond his own vindication to a condemnation of God in Job’s first speech to God. Ultimately, they fail to see Job’s adjournment and continuation of his Oath of Innocence implied by the allusion to the story of Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah in Job’s final speech.

(e) Finally, they fail to give full expression to God’s ultimate judgment on Job. Job and only Job spoke rightly about God. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to deny the ultimate propriety of the moral and legal question as a way of framing man’s encounter with God.

Some conservative scholars opt for a moral resolution of the question of evil in the world, but their resolution is equally unsatisfying. They interpret Job’s so-called excessive words in his speeches preceding the Oath of Innocence to be morally wrong. They interpret Job’s raising of the Oath of Innocence to be a sin of presumption. While they accept God’s two judgments on Job in heaven, they feel subsequent events show Job sinning. While God is not beyond good and evil, God is under no moral obligation to reveal any reason for sending evil into the world. Thus they would have Job retract his lawsuit in its entirety and repent morally for either his so-called excessive words, his raising of the lawsuit or both. They feel the legal metaphor is inappropriate because while there is an answer to the moral question of evil in the world, no human being has a right to that answer and God is under no duty to give that answer. To the extent there is a scholarly consensus on The Book of Job and there probably is not such a consensus, this is the minority reading.

This author feels such conservative scholars miss a satisfactory moral resolution for three reasons.

(a) First, they fail to understand the depth of Satan’s challenge to God. It is not merely that Job will curse God. It is that God is wrong in his judgment on Job’s goodness. God has missed sin in Job’s life. Such scholars think their moral resolution is possible, because although Job sins, Job does not actually curse God. The problem they have is that their resolution actually makes Satan right in his challenge of God. Satan claimed Job was a sinner and they feel Job sinned. Thus Satan is in the right in his lawsuit with God and God should step down from his throne and destroy mankind.

(b) Second, they fail to give proper weight to Job’s blamelessness and integrity. The raising of the Oath of Innocence is an expression of that blamelessness and integrity. It is what God expects of Job, though he cannot tell him that directly. If Job sins in raising the lawsuit against God, then the sin is blasphemy and God is seriously mistaken in his judgment of Job’s blamelessness and integrity.

(c) Finally, they fail to give full expression to God’s ultimate judgment on Job. Job and only Job spoke rightly about God. 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 for his Oath of Innocence. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to deny the ultimate propriety of the moral and legal question as a way of framing man’s encounter with God.

My personal interpretation charts a new middle course between these two-fold horrors: a liberal Scylla which places God beyond good and evil and a conservative Charybdis which attributes sin to Job, either for his so-called excessive words, his Oath of Innocence or both. I reject both streams of conventional scholarly interpretation, because they fail to integrate all the elements in The Book of Job. God has a moral reason for sending evil. Man has a need and a right to know that reason. But God need not provide that reason here and now. An adjournment of God’s trial to the Day of the Final Judgment and its continuation then is strongly implied. It is implied through the allusion to Abraham. It is implied through the allusion to a Redeemer who stands up in court at the Final Judgment to plead Job’s cause. It is implied through the allusion to the apocalyptic destruction of Leviathan at the Messianic banquet and the explanation of all things that follows. The legal metaphor is highly appropriate. A satisfactory moral solution is only possible because of the distinction between casual responsibility and moral blameworthiness embedded in Job’s Oath of Innocence. That distinction is central to the criminal law defense of justification or necessity. God may be causally responsible for the evil in the world, but not morally blameworthy for it. He has a necessary and sufficient reason for the evil and will ultimately give it. Job grants him that time without denying his need to know and without withdrawing his right to know. In this work, my intention is to present a single comprehensive and coherent interpretation of The Book of Job that preserves the moral integrity of both God and man.

 

[Robert Sutherland]

Does Job sin in the Book of Job?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Robert,


thank you for the post.

when you say "Widely praised as one of the greatest books ever written, The Book of Job"

i'm curious... who says this? this is the first time that i've heard this.. perhaps, i'm not all that versed on OT books

 

[Robert Sutherland]

Daniel Webster wrote: "The Book of Job taken as a mere work of literary genius is one of the most wonderful productions of any age or of any language.

Thomas Carlyle wrote: "There is nothing written, I think, in the Bible or out of it, of equal literary merit."

Lord Alfred Tennyson wrote: "The greatest poem, whether of ancient or modern literature"

Victor Hugo wrote: "Tomorrow, if all literature was to be destroyed and it was left to me to retain one work only, I should save Job."

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Robert,

thank you for the post.

i presume you are replying to my query?

Daniel Webster wrote: "The Book of Job taken as a mere work of literary genius is one of the most wonderful productions of any age or of any language.

Thomas Carlyle wrote: "There is nothing written, I think, in the Bible or out of it, of equal literary merit."

Lord Alfred Tennyson wrote: "The greatest poem, whether of ancient or modern literature"

Victor Hugo wrote: "Tomorrow, if all literature was to be destroyed and it was left to me to retain one work only, I should save Job."

one wonders how much ancient literature that these folks have read

in any case, thank you for the response.

 

[Robert Sutherland]

Vajradhara:

To my knowledge, Webster, Hugo, Tennyson and Carlyle all had a standard classical education which would have exposed them to Homer, Virgil, Dante and Milton. Yet they all seem to rank the poet of the Book of Job at the top of that class.

I speculate from your name that your background may be Indian. If so, then you may be interested to know that some scholars have thought there was an Indian Job.

The majority of such references are to the legend of the pious king Haricandra; and the fullest accounts of this legend in recent literature may be seen in English in S. Terrien's commentary in The Interpreter's Bible (ed. G.A. Buttrick), vol. 3 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), p. 879 and Theodor H. Gaster's Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament, vol. 2 (London: Harper & Row, 1975), pp. 785, 858 Most of these reports of the Indian tale are derivative from that given by Adolphe Lods both in his article 'Recherches récentes sur le livre de Job', RHPR 14 (1934), pp. 501-33 (527-28), (cited by Hölscher) and in his manual Histoire de la littérature hébraïque et juive depuis les origines jusqu'à la ruine de l'état juif (135 apres J.-C.) (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950), pp. 691-92 (cited by Kuhl, Fohrer, Terrien).

The story as given by Lods obviously exhibits several close correspondences with the biblical narrative. It will be convenient to cite it in the form given to it by S. Terrien, a pupil of Lods, in the introduction to his commentary in The Interpreter's Bible:

The gods and goddesses were assembled with the seven Menus [ascetics] in the heaven of Indra. The question was asked whether a single human prince could be found who would be without stain or blemish. Most of the members of the divine assembly were of the opinion that there was none, but Vasishta insisted that a certain Atschandira (Haricandra) was perfect. Shiva Rutren ('the destroyer') offered to prove the contrary if the prince were delivered into his power. Vasishta accepted the challenge, and it was agreed that, depending upon the issue of the wager, one would yield to the other all merits acquired in a long series of penance. Shiva Rutren thereupon submitted Atschandira to all sorts of trials, deprived him of his wealth, kingdom, wife, and only son, but the prince persisted in his virtue. The gods rewarded him with munificence and returned to him his previous estate. Shiva Rutren gave his own merits to Vasishta, who passed them on to the hero (p. 879).

The features that are special to this account and reminiscent of Job are: (i) the narrative opens in a divine assembly; (ii) the question of human perfection is raised; (iii) one human being is singled out as a test case; (iv) there is a conflict, specifically a wager, between two members of the heavenly assembly; (v) the man loses his possessions (including his family), but ultimately has them restored.

The consensus however seems to be that there was no Indian Job. Can you assist?

 

[Mus Zibii]

It is a good poem. At least in the victorian english.

Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived. Let that day be darkness; let not God regard it from above, neither let the light shine upon it. Let darkness and the shadow of death stain it; let a cloud dwell upon it; let the blackness of the day terrify it. As for that night, let darkness seize upon it; let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months. Lo, let that night be solitary, let no joyful voice come therein. Let them curse it that curse the day, who are ready to raise up their mourning. Let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark; let it look for light, but have none; neither let it see the dawning of the day: Because it shut not up the doors of my mother's womb, nor hid sorrow from mine eyes. Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly? Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest, With kings and counsellors of the earth, which build desolate places for themselves; Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver: Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light. There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest. There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor. The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master. Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery, and life unto the bitter in soul; Which long for death, but it cometh not; and dig for it more than for hid treasures; Which rejoice exceedingly, and are glad, when they can find the grave?
Why is light given to a man whose way is hid, and whom God hath hedged in?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Robert,

thank you for the post.

Vajardhara is a Tibetan name... not Indian, per se, though there is often a great deal of overlap in these cases.

nevertheless, in the SantanaDharma of India, which we call Hinduism now.. MahaBrahma IS everything, thus, for the sake of argument, an Indian Job would be, essentially, MahaBrahma arguing with Himself. the

in fact... everything IS MahaBrahma... it's not that MahaBrahma is IN everything, ie. emmenant in things.. He IS those things, in all their various forms.

yes, this is what i thought you were referring to... a "western" classical education. what can i say expect that there are other cultural "classical" educations

Vajradhara:

To my knowledge, Webster, Hugo, Tennyson and Carlyle all had a standard classical education which would have exposed them to Homer, Virgil, Dante and Milton. Yet they all seem to rank the poet of the Book of Job at the top of that class.

I speculate from your name that your background may be Indian. If so, then you may be interested to know that some scholars have thought there was an Indian Job.

The majority of such references are to the legend of the pious king Haricandra; and the fullest accounts of this legend in recent literature may be seen in English in S. Terrien's commentary in The Interpreter's Bible (ed. G.A. Buttrick), vol. 3 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954), p. 879 and Theodor H. Gaster's Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament, vol. 2 (London: Harper & Row, 1975), pp. 785, 858 Most of these reports of the Indian tale are derivative from that given by Adolphe Lods both in his article 'Recherches récentes sur le livre de Job', RHPR 14 (1934), pp. 501-33 (527-28), (cited by Hölscher) and in his manual Histoire de la littérature hébraïque et juive depuis les origines jusqu'à la ruine de l'état juif (135 apres J.-C.) (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950), pp. 691-92 (cited by Kuhl, Fohrer, Terrien).

The story as given by Lods obviously exhibits several close correspondences with the biblical narrative. It will be convenient to cite it in the form given to it by S. Terrien, a pupil of Lods, in the introduction to his commentary in The Interpreter's Bible:

The gods and goddesses were assembled with the seven Menus [ascetics] in the heaven of Indra. The question was asked whether a single human prince could be found who would be without stain or blemish. Most of the members of the divine assembly were of the opinion that there was none, but Vasishta insisted that a certain Atschandira (Haricandra) was perfect. Shiva Rutren ('the destroyer') offered to prove the contrary if the prince were delivered into his power. Vasishta accepted the challenge, and it was agreed that, depending upon the issue of the wager, one would yield to the other all merits acquired in a long series of penance. Shiva Rutren thereupon submitted Atschandira to all sorts of trials, deprived him of his wealth, kingdom, wife, and only son, but the prince persisted in his virtue. The gods rewarded him with munificence and returned to him his previous estate. Shiva Rutren gave his own merits to Vasishta, who passed them on to the hero (p. 879).

The features that are special to this account and reminiscent of Job are: (i) the narrative opens in a divine assembly; (ii) the question of human perfection is raised; (iii) one human being is singled out as a test case; (iv) there is a conflict, specifically a wager, between two members of the heavenly assembly; (v) the man loses his possessions (including his family), but ultimately has them restored.

The consensus however seems to be that there was no Indian Job. Can you assist?

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

In the ancient biblical Book of Job, I think Job puts God on trial as the author of some undeserved evil in the world and refuses to acquit him.

What are your thoughts?

He tries to - just as we all do. The conclusion in Chapters 40-42 (minus the lame happy ending added later) is the heart of the teaching of this brilliant book:

JOB 40

1 The LORD said to Job:

2 "Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!"

3 Then Job answered the LORD :

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

6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm:

7 "Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

8 "Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
9 Do you have an arm like God's,
and can your voice thunder like his?
10 Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor,
and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
11 Unleash the fury of your wrath,
look at every proud man and bring him low,
12 look at every proud man and humble him,
crush the wicked where they stand.
13 Bury them all in the dust together;
shroud their faces in the grave.
14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you . . .

JOB 42

1 Then Job replied to the LORD :

2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted.
3 You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know.

4 "You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.'
5 My ears had heard of you
but now my eyes have seen you.
6 Therefore I despise myself
and repent in dust and ashes."


Abodago del Diablo

 

[Robert Sutherland]

Abadago del Diablio:

1. Why do you think the author used "naham", a Hebrew word meaning "change course" (a word normally used to describe God's so-called repentances) rather than "shub", the normal Hebrew word for a confession of wrongdoing? (Job 42:6)

2. If Job sinned, what was his sin in light of God's comment that Job spoke rightly? (Job 42:7)

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Abadago del Diablio:

1. Why do you think the author used "naham", a Hebrew word meaning "change course" (a word normally used to describe God's so-called repentances) rather than "shub", the normal Hebrew word for a confession of wrongdoing? (Job 42:6)

2. If Job sinned, what was his sin in light of God's comment that Job spoke rightly? (Job 42:7)

For me, the point of Job is that there is no truth to justifying or judging by anyone - whether it is Job accusing God or his friends accusing Job or his friends justifying God or Job perceiving himself as having sinned and requiring a confession of wrongdoing as would be implied by "shub."

However, there isn't a "right speaking" either, as indicated by Job's "retraction" (ma'as) of his accusations. The NIV translation I quoted from I don't think captures the meaning ("I despise myself" instead of "I retract") Although ma'as could be translater as either "retract" or "despise", "retract" is more consisent with the use of naham (rather than shub) later in Job's final "retracting" sentence. Both words imply a change without an admission of guilt or wrongdoing.

If Job glimpses the perfection of God and the emptiness of his judgments, how could he perpetuate those judgments by turning them upon himself and judging himiself a wrongdoer or sinner for having thought thought or said them?

As for your second question, Job didn't sin.

 

[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”.http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=12820#_edn1 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)

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

[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”.http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=12827#_edn1



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.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=12827#_ednref1 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.)

Inhttp://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=12828#_edn1 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 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

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

That's cool if true.


Naham

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.

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)

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.

But such suggestions of moral purpose in evil were

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.

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

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.