 Bottom |
Table of Contents |
Index to Key Themes |
 Burning Coal |
 New Wine Online |
|
Bottom |
Table of Contents |
Index to Key Themes |
Burning Coal |
New Wine Online |
Commentary on
 back |
 next |
Because I have long been interested in the problem of suffering, and in particular suffering which appears to be unjustified, the book of Job has drawn me to it several times. Bad things happening to good people seem to defy our sense of justice, suggesting that God has become remote, distant or perhaps indifferent. Oswald Chambers, lecturing to the soldiers in the trenches of World War I, describes it beautifully: “There are people today who are going through an onslaught of destruction that paralyzes all our platitudes and preaching” (Chambers 1990, 20). Nightly news brings us new onslaughts and revelations of old onslaughts laughing our comfortable religion to scorn. Modern theology is paralyzed by the holocaust. C.S. Lewis adds this further thought: “pain would be no problem unless, side by side with our daily experience of this painful world, we had received what we think a good assurance that the ultimate reality is righteous and loving” (Lewis 1996, 14). Job, we will see, is sure that God rewards righteousness and would never treat him unjustly.
Despite reading books about the work, rereading Job several times, and attending study groups on the book, I was always dissatisfied with the answers that I received. Jerome compared the book to an eel, it's very hard to get a hold of (Martini 1992, 23). When I talk to others there are many who seem unable to understand the book at all. One author notes, “I avoided reading and studying Job for years. This was due to it being a difficult book to understand and also due to the many erroneous teachings relating to Job” (Lucas 2002, chapter 12). I talked with a man who had retired from the mission field in Latin America. He told me that his entire Bible was marked with notes and highlights except the book of Job. He said he had but one or two highlights there. He just couldn't penetrate the surface of the book. The problem is that the book of Job goes strait to the heart of some of the most profound and troubling questions of the Bible, without the benefit of low hanging fruit to lead one in. Without those juicy morsels many of us simply won't take the time to crack the surface.
The problem is not confined to lay people. “While the book has fascinated readers for ages, it is a difficult book, difficult to translate and difficult to study. Most of it is written in poetic parallelism. But it is often very cryptic, it is written with unusual grammatical constructions, and it makes use of a large number of foriegn words (Vicchio 2020, loc. 10063), and includes 119 words that appear only one time in the entire Bible (Vicchio 2020, loc. 9889), for some translators are forced to guess at the meaning. All this has led some scholars to question if it was originally written in Hebrew or some other related Semitic dialect or language first. There is no indication of who the author was. It is even possible that the work may have been refined over the years; but there is no evidence for this either. The book uses a variety of genres (laments, hymns, proverbs, and oracles) in the various speeches of the participants. This all adds to the richness of the material” (NET Bible, footnote to verse 1:1).
The poetry of Job gives some impressions easily, but deeper meanings hide in layers beneath the surface. Most people know little more than a thumbnail sketch of the story. This current effort is the direct result of a sermon on Leviathan (chapter 41) preached by my former pastor Chris Simpson. He brought me to a new level of understanding and excitement about this work. My first impression of Job was that it is a book about endurance and suffering. My second understanding was that of the need for faith in the presence of suffering. Through the insights I have received from Chris and from further research and meditation on the text, I have come to realize that the book of Job is a pattern, both of salvation and more importantly, how one comes to salvation.
The book of Job foreshadows the new testament of Christ Jesus as thoroughly as Job himself foreshadows the suffering and redemption of Jesus. The book of Job introduces the place of the Law, the works of righteousness and justification by faith, the refiner's way (taking up the cross), and the choice of personal righteousness (self-righteousness) or embracing God's “chief” among other important themes. Job is not released from his bondage to suffering until he is able to fall on his face and proclaim all of his righteousness but filthy rags and offer himself completely and fully to the hand of God. The book of Job is, in my opinion, the purest statement of the purpose of the entire Bible and a door to all understanding. At the heart of it, our platitudes and our preaching must be crushed in the most unambiguous way, before we will turn and see the face of God.
If, as many believe, The book of Job is the oldest book of the Bible, then it makes a perfect introduction to the entire Bible, including the New Testament. Themes, concepts and specific phrases introduced here, are repeated time and again throughout the rest of the Bible. Barnes’ Notes on the Old Testament states, “The proper place for the book of Job, in order to estimate its real value and importance, is at the commencement of the Bible, or in the early part of the book of Genesis” (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 6).
I would like to highlight a recent book I acquired The Book of Job, A Biography. This book approaches the Book of Job from an entirely different but very worthwhile perspective: how it has been used historically. It is well written by Mark Larrimore, head of religious studies at Eugene Lang College, containing a wealth of knowledge of the practical uses of the book of Job.
Justification by adherence to the law and God's covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their children, seems to be an underlying theme throughout. Job may not have been under Abraham's covenant, but a form of law and covenant is clearly implied in the text. This bargain with God is central to Job's argument: I have done right, so I should be blessed, not cursed. Up to the beginning of this narrative, it appears that Job has been blessed specifically because of his careful observance of God's laws. God will bring Job to a new level of relationship with Him, whereby Job will rise above the question of justification altogether. This is the relationship of Behemoth (40:15-24), abiding in God. Those who have studied Job may be surprised at this understanding of Behemoth, but I believe the material amply supports this. I will introduce some ancillary material to support this view.
The book of Job, preceding Paul by several hundred to possibly two thousand years, throws ice cold water on the notion that good works, or careful observance of the law, justifies a person before God. A clear argument for justification by faith and not by works is contained within its pages. Yet, in the same way that the New Testament authors affirm the importance of works, Job's righteousness is clearly important to God and to Satan, and is important to the argument from the very beginning.
Job's friends assume that blessings and curses extend from the hand of God in direct proportion to a man's righteousness, and therefore assume that Job must be a sinner. Job, himself, cannot foresee the good that God is attempting to work in his life. To his eyes, God is against him, and yet he cannot see the reason. Job, too, assumes there must be a reason, based on something that he has done wrong. God goes to the heart of sin itself, not the daily peccadillos, but to the nature of Job's relationship to God Himself. Despite Job's difficult struggle against it, God slowly and painfully works a miracle of purification in Job's life. His friends are redeemed by humbling themselves directly to Job per God's instructions.
Job in some ways prefigures Christ. Although perfect in his ways, Job is delivered into the hands of Satan. Jesus tells Pilate, who is about to deliver him unto death by crucifiction, that the one with the greater guilt is the one with the greater authority: Satan (John 19:11). Once Job submits to God, he is made a redeemer for his three friends. The pattern is not perfect or complete, but it is there. The truly remarkable thing about it is that it is written here long before the advent of Jesus.
More importantly, Job prefigures the choice of salvation. Job believes he should be acceptable to God by the merit of his perfect righteousness. Clearly God is pleased with Job. Although Job seems satisfied, Job's righteousness is clearly not enough for God. He drops Job into the refiner's crucible, an apt metaphor used liberally by Job himself. The end of Job is infinitely richer and more pleasing to God. If there is one limitation to the book of Job, it is that we are given little insight into the change that is made in Job. I truly believe that Job is in heaven now, praying for our own arrival there.
I also believe that the apostle Paul is a study in the latter end of this transformation. While the book of Job reveals the righteousness of Job through the time of his transformation and then becomes sketchy as to the latter end of Job, the Acts of the Apostles reveals Paul's self-righteousness in sketchy detail until the time of his transformation and then begins to follow his life much closer. It doesn't help to force this comparison too far. Job and Paul are very different people and their transformations happen in very different circumstances, but I do believe that God does the same thing in Paul that he does in Job. Therefore, Paul's life can reveal the results of this process, not in a universal way, but in a specific concrete instance.
If nothing else, the book of Job is a study in God's process of transforming a person from righteousness to salvation. There is no more in depth look at this process than right here. Job fights the process all the way. Besides the acts done by Paul (Saul) against the Christians of Palestine, we know that Paul was resisting the still small voice of God until he is knocked flat by Jesus on the way to Damascus. Here Jesus reveals the struggle, “it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” (Acts 9:5), which tells us nothing about what he has been doing to try to turn Paul, but it does tell us that considerable effort has been expended to turn Paul, and that Paul has been resisting.
The book of Job is in many ways the most modern of all of the books of the Bible. At the same time its antiquity belies its fresh content. The language, which is rich and powerful, is also archaic. The book with its archaic wordings and strange allusions is difficult to bite and chew, much less digest. However the book of Job reads like an introspective study, which gives the book a modern feel. No other book of the Bible has this same quality. The entire story revolves around Job's internal struggle to reconcile a just God with unjustified suffering.
Job's three friends and especially the mysterious Elihu at the end all reflect Job's own attitudes, beliefs and character. As a result, the extended dialogs have the quality of a heated internal argument. None of the characters turn out to be correct, and only the victim is exonerated, and then after some scolding. God's answer to Job is anything but direct. And He does not explain His contest with the devil. Outside of Job's continued suffering, Satan and the contest play no part at all in the story after chapter two. Instead, God describes His workings and concludes His dialog with the description of two great beasts, Behemoth and Leviathan. This has to do with internal choices that Job must make. Job understands and chooses.
If the reader can penetrate the surface of the material, the intense introspective energy of it makes the book of Job a rich resource for evaluating the teachings of psychology, self-help, New Age and other self-focused attempts at spiritual healing. The book of Job is an antidote and a clear warning against leaning on the understanding of men in the realms of the spiritual. This exposed study of Job's psychological healing process in the hands of God makes this book the single most important resource for psychology. Many psychologies and most especially “Christian” psychologies are seriously flawed if they do not understand Job.
When we study the life of Joseph, Moses or Saul of Tarsus, we find countless ways in which we can apply the lessons of their lives to our own. But the story of Job is so extreme, it cuts to the bone. It is an open window on suicidal depression, on holocaust injustice, on being kicked when you're down, on loosing faith, on sending your last dove in search of dry land, on taking hope from a twig.
“Even the eminent saint is not perfect in this life. Religion does not deliver him from all imperfection. It leaves the mind subject to conflict, anxiety, trouble; engaged in a fearful warfare with sin and temptation; liable to the outbreaks of impatience and murmuring; subject to the possibility of being thrown off the guard, and of saying things which will be subsequently the occasion of much regret. Now, as it is the design of revelation to exhibit religion not only in its precepts, doctrines, and commands, but as it actually exists in the mind and heart, it was important to furnish some actual illustrations of this in detail. For this purpose, nothing could be better adapted than to select just such a case as that of Job, and to exhibit him in a condition of most extraordinary trial” (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 6).
We are meant to be nourished by Job's tale. There is solace to be had in seeing someone far more worthy than I suffering so much. It allows me to see my suffering as something other than punishment and rejection by God. Just possibly, I can see the loving hand of God refining me through trials to raise me up. We are meant to find new insight and new direction for life. As the questions are deep and complex, the answers are not simple. To mature as the adopted children of God, we must see what Job sees: “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42:5-6).
Oswald Chambers says it well: “The problem in the book of Job represents the problem of the whole world. No matter what a man's experiences may be, whether slight or terrific, there is something in this book which gives him an indication as to why the redemption was necessary, and also a line of explaining the otherwise inexplicable things of human experience” (Chambers 1990, 120). The frustration is in peering through Job's window and seeing something familiar in the awful truth but not understanding the answer. To understand, one must continue to look upon it until it becomes clear. A true understanding of Job will loosen eternal springs of the waters of life.
The book of Job examines the biggest human problem that lies between us and our maker, the problem of pain. Job is experiencing his own private Holocaust. He does not actually die as most of the victims of Nazis did, but he is brought to the thin edge of it and left to hang there. Several traditional commentators believe the events of the book played out over several years. The question immediately arises: how do we believe in a good and loving God, if the righteous can suffer so horribly and seemingly without reason? The book of Job would appear to indict God of making cruel sport at His most trusted servant's expense.
It is variously claimed that the book of Job is a theodicy, a defense of God, a thinking piece which examines the problem of evil and God's part in it, in order to exonerate God. A recent book by a lawyer has the provocative title Putting God on Trial. The author confidently explains, “The Book of Job is a provocative theodicy, an attempt to justify the ways of God to man,” (Sutherland 2004). But if we examine the text, several important factors emerge. Although the three friends defend God vigorously, and although Job calls for a trial, and even though the mysterious Elihu claims to intercede on God's behalf, God never argues on His own behalf. God never explains Himself or defends Himself. And although Job rants Godward there is never a charge placed against Job by God, and Job never accuses God of anything more than error. Job certainly never suggests that God is not within His rights to do whatever He wishes (Smith 1971, 120). If the author of the book of Job is intending to justify God, it would seem that there would be an eloquent passage, probably at the end, stating how wonderfully God dealt with Job. Instead the text reads like a dramatic retelling of an actual event where the actions of God seem somewhat capricious or downright mean.
Few commentators give God high marks for His role in the drama. I recently attended a presentation on ‘Healing Your Image of God’. The subject of Job came up. Those who wish to indict God are quick to point to this book. As a theodicy therefore, the book of Job is a poor defense of God. In the same way that God spends no effort to defend Himself, the book ultimately doesn't either. The book of Job is about how God is reaching His saints. When I suggested to the teacher that God was being merciful to Job, he looked at me as if I had been eating bad mushrooms. However I am firmly convinced that the ultimate story of Job is that God in His mercy will place His coveted saints in the refining fire to bring them to the place where they can know Him face to face. I like David Wilkerson's view: if you are truly one of God's own, the question is not ‘if you will be put into the fire’, but ‘when’. H.H. Rowley, speaking of the Book of Job, says, “It is of the essence of its message that Job found God in his suffering, and so found relief not from his misfortunes, but in them. God was to him now far more precious than he has ever been.” (quoted in: Smith 1971, 128).
Is the book of Job a the remembrance of a real event? Or is the story of Job a morality tale, invented as a backdrop to extended dialogues concerning the suffering of the righteous? This tale of the incomprehensible devastation poured out on the head of a single man seems to defy credibility. But woven through is a rich tapestry of personal detail. There are names, places, heredities, and random details: the daughters share in the inheritance (42:15), Job is raised with an orphan (31:17-18), his goods are not merely plundered, but plundered by Sabeans and Chaldeans (1:15-17). The many details give the narrative a texture uncharacteristic of epic tales. It has all the grit of real life. The recording and preservation of this narrative attest to the importance placed upon its power to speak into lives.
No less persons than Ezekiel (Ezek. 14:14) and James (James 5:11) believed Job to be a real person. I am not aware of any ancient writer who doubted the voracity of the book. My conclusion is that this is a morality tale provided by God through intervention in the lives of real people. Barnes’ Notes on the Old Testament contains an excellent discussion of this subject (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 1).
The dialogues in heaven had to have been added after the fact as none of the characters in the narrative is ever made aware of Satan's contest with God. However Barnes notes that a rigid structure of threes pervades the book and makes all elements integral to the finished structure. Therefore he maintains the prologue and epilogue are an inseparable part of the completed book (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 5). The dialogues themselves have a polish which indicates a deliberate reconstruction possibly over several years. Job lived another 140 years after the events of the book (42:16). We don't know how long the others involved lived. Certainly they retold the events enough times that the story not only passed into the Hebrew bible, but additional narratives appear in the Midrash and in various Persian collections. What is clear is that the underlying events were very real, and that whoever did compose the poetry was not only a great poet, but knew God face-to-face. The prime two candidates would be Job himself or Moses.
Bob Sorge, in his book on Job Pain, Perplexity and Promotion (Sorge, 16-20), suggests Job, the man, lived several generations before Abraham. First, Sorge argues, Job acts as his own priest, much as does Abraham or other pre-Mosaic figures. There is no mention of God's covenant with Israel, Hebrew events or Mosaic Law. God says, “there is none like him on earth” (1:8), which would mean that he is not likely a contemporary of any of the prophets. He is not compared to any other person's righteousness. The lifespans of the biblical generations gradually diminish to the average of seventy, allowing a rough positioning by lifespan. The Septuagint following Syrian texts states that Job lived 240 years (Sorge, 19; Clarke, note to 42:17). We know that Job is said to have lived 140 years after the events of the book (42:16), he has ten grown children prior to that time (1:2-4) and further Elihu says that he and his friends are already “very old” (32:6). Barnes notes that the Septuagint also says that Job lived 170 years after the events of the book, making him 70 years old at the time of the events (Barnes, note to 42:16). As the book of Job only gives him 140 years after the events, adjusting for that he might have only lived 210 years, still a remarkable age. Nahor, Abraham's grandfather, lived 248 years. Abraham's father lived 205 years. This suggests that Job probably lived shortly before Abraham, possibly overlapping his lifespan (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 3).
There is compelling evidence to the contrary, which would place Job among the descendants of Esau, therefore a descendant of Abraham. According to Mark Larrimore there is a genealogical appendix to the Septuagint “showing Job to be ‘the fifth from Abraam’ ” (Larrimore, The Book of Job, A Biography, 2013. 8). The apocryphal text the Testament of Job suggests that Job took Dinah, the daughter of Jacob as his second wife (Larrimore 2013. 46). This suggests that tradition held Job to be descended from Abraham.
An appendix to the book of Job found in some versions of the Septuagint (Welch, lecture ten) says that Job's original name was ‘Jobab’: “This man is described in the Syriac book as dwelling in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia; and his name before was Jobab; and having taken an Arabian wife, he begat a son whose name was Ennon. He himself was the son of his father Zara, a son of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraham. And these were the kings who reigned in Edom, which country he also ruled over. First Balak the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dennaba. After Balak, Jobab, who is called Job: and after him, Asom, who was governor out of the country of Thaeman; and after him Adad, son of Barad, that destroyed Madiam in the plain of Moab; and the name of his city was Gethaim. And the friends that came to him were Eliphaz of the sons of Esau, king of the Thaemanites, Baldad sovereign of the Sauchaeans, Sophar, king of the Minaeans” (The Companion Bible, Appendix 62; also Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 3).
A king of Edom by the name Jobab is listed in Genesis and in 1 Chronicles: “Then Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah became king in his place. Then Jobab died, and Hasham of the land of the Temanites became king in his place” (Gen. 36:33-34; also 1 Chron. 1:43-45). An Edomite would be a descendant of Esau (Gen. 36:43). I would imagine that Bela is a variation of the name Balak. It is interesting that Jobab is associated with a Temanite [Thaemanite]. The leader of Job's three friend is “Eliphaz the Temanite” (4:1). Eliphaz is also the name of Esau's firstborn son and Teman was Eliphaz's son (Gen. 36:15). Job comes from 'the land of Uz' (1:1). Uz was believed to lie in the region now in southern Jordan and northern Arabia, although an alternate location near Damascus is also possible (Vicchio 2020, loc. 1632-1651). There are several places in northern Arabia or Jordon claiming to have been the home of Job, and as many as six tombs of Job (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 2). Uz is a grandson of Shem (Gen. 10:22-23). Uz is also the name of a brother-in-law to Esau (Gen. 36:28). Another Uz (in NASB, or Huz in KJV) and Buz are nephews of Abraham (Gen. 22:21). Elihu is a Buzite of the kindred of Ram (32:2) and Clarke notes, “Kemuel was the third son of Nahor; and is called in Genesis–the father of Aram, which is the same as Ram. A city of the name of Buz is found in Jeremiah 25:23, which probably had its name from this family; and, as it is mentioned with Dedan and Tema, we know it must have been a city in Idumea, as the others were in that district” (Clarke, note to 32:2). This strongly links Job, Eliphaz and Elihu to Abraham or his brother Nahor. There are also Shuhamites (Num. 26:42) and Shunites (Num. 26:15) as well as Naamites (Num. 26:40) among the descendants of Abraham. Job's other two friends are Bildad the Shuhite (8:1), and Zophar the Naamathite (11:1).
If the Job of this book is Jobab of Genesis 36 then he is much younger than the suppositions above would allow. His extreme age of over two-hundred years would be quite remarkable as he would have lived within a few hundred years of Moses, but lived to twice his age. Genesis 36 lists six kings following Jobab, but does not give the length of their reigns. There is no way to confirm if Jobab was the same man or not, but the evidence is compelling.
Knowing when Job lived doesn't tell us when the book of Job was committed to writing. Jewish tradition claims that Moses wrote the book. Although they do not give it the same weight as the history and laws contained in the first five books of Moses the Pentatuach. The assumption is that Moses discovered this local story while living in Midian and collected remnants of it into the book we now know before he returned to Egypt. This would make it the first written book of the Bible.
A summation of scholarship on the book is available in Adam Clarke's Commentary of the Old Testament which I use as a starting point. Clarke suggests that the scholarship points to one of three authors: Moses, Solomon or an unknown writer of the captivity period. All three positions are supportable through textual analysis. Clarke, and apparently many scholars, prefer the last option, an unknown writer of the captivity period. This would make the date of the book about 400 B.C.E. Unger prefers a date near the time of Solomon (Unger, 695). There is also strong tradition for Moses as author.
Raymond Scheindlin, whose translation of the Book of Job is the most unique. His translation has the sense of a world moving towards the world of the Pentateuch. He believes the author is of the latter period, but suggests the author intentionally uses references to a more archaic world. So, for instance, the Chaldeans at the time of the Babylonian captivity were a finely honed army fully integrated into the empire of Babylon, but in earlier times they had been roving bands of opportunistic raiders. So Scheindlin notes that it is the earlier marauding Chaldean pictured in the book of Job, (Scheindlin , 163). He also points out that the council around God is referred to as “sons of gods” (1:6). “Ancient Mediterranean literatures, both Semitic and Greek, abound in descriptions of the councils of the gods; a similar picture is found in I Kings 22:19-22. In the narrative of Job, in line with the monotheistic principle, Yahweh is the absolute master of the other gods, who report to Him. But by calling them lesser gods (literally, ‘sons of gods’) rather than angels, the author strengthens the impression that the story is told by and about pagans, outside the sphere of Israelite religion.” (Scheindlin, 162). Scheindlin, therefore, argues for authorship that is non-Hebrew and prior to the time of the captivity.
The author of this book had a very clear grasp of what it means to cleave to God in the absolute worst of circumstances. An unknown writer of the captivity could fill this requirement. Portions of the book of Job among the fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the book already had a substantial pedigree several hundred years before Christ, making authorship during the captivity period less likely. Of the three possibilities listed by Clarke, Moses, for many, is the best candidate for author of the book. Moses completely fills the role of someone uniquely qualified to understand Job. As a prince of Egypt forced to flee into the desert, he truly exemplifies someone who had everything and lost it all. As someone whose self-righteousness caused him to act on presumption, forcing him to suffer 40 years of exile tending goats in the desert, Moses could understand what lurks in the depths of Job. Moses did not start out meek, but became the meekest man on earth (Numb. 12:3), truly a Job-like transformation, and not without the forceful intervention of divine nurture. The author of Job had to have had an incredibly deep relationship with God. Outside of Job himself, there is no one of the pre-Christian era as uniquely qualified to commit the story of Job to writing as was Moses.
The theory of Mason Good, in his Introductory Dissertation to his translation of the work, (outlined in Adam Clarke), asserts that Moses wrote the book while living in the desert of Midian, which is close to the land of Uz and the several locations mentioned in the beginning of the book. The realizations gained from these truths, could well have been the preparation needed for Moses to meet God himself. If the book was written by Moses in his own exile, it would be the oldest book of the Bible, or from about 2000 B.C.E. (see also: Sorge, 15-16). Matthew Henry holds to this view: “we have reason to think it of equal date with the book of Genesis itself” (Henry, Introductory Comments, section III).
Matthew Henry suggests that the author is Elihu. “It seems most probable to me that Elihu was the penman of it, at least of the discourses, because (ch. 32:15, 16) he mingles the words of a historian with those of a disputant: but Moses perhaps wrote the first two chapters and the last, to give light to the discourses” (Henry, Introductory Comments, section I). I think the evidence thin. It is hard to imagine why Elihu is not mentioned by God with the three friends for his unwarranted condemnations unless as author, Elihu used the opportunity to include a self-serving oversight. I think that the frank disclosure of his condemnations mitigates against this possibility. If one of the actual participants was the author, the one who truly understood what happened is Job. He had the means, the motive and the opportunity. With an additional 140 years to work on the memoir and his position as king or tribal leader, Job, who understood the significance of the event, could well have felt compelled to record this narrative in a way that not only informs, but instructs. He does allude to writing (19:23-24; 31:35) so there is no reason to rule him out as the author.
Charles H. Welch, in a lecture from 1957, makes some interesting points on Moses as author. Chiefly he suggests that it is unlikely that a man of Moses high education, stranded in the desert of Midian for forty years, would not be fascinated by this local tale, particularly if there were written records to examine. “I'm morally certain that he went there and it was provided by God for him that he should have this first introduction to what faith in a living God can mean” (Welch, lecture one). He places Uz in Arabia very near Midian. Who else but Moses would collect this work regarding a man from Arabia, edit it and make it a part of the heritage of Israel. He follows the line of Matthew Henry that the book was collected by Moses, who added the first two chapters and the last and that it became an important work for the children of Israel as they wandered in the wilderness. “The probability is that the opening chapters which give you the history and the closing chapters which give you the history where penned as far as I can understand by Moses who had the book before him when he was forty years in Midian and came back with it as the first written testimony before he put the Book of Genesis unto parchment or whatever he wrote upon in those early days” (Welch, lecture eleven).
As for certain chapters being added, Barnes suggests, “any supposition that these chapters are by a later hand, is entirely conjectural–no authority for any such belief being furnished by the ancient versions, manuscripts, or traditions” (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 4). Barnes notes that the book is divided into three sections: prologue, dialogue, epilogue. The dialogues are further divided into three rounds of dialogues in each of which Job's three friends speak. The epilogue can be divided into three, and those subdivided into threes. Barnes feels that the grammatic structure of threes resists the notion of any later additions to the manuscript (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 5).
Several scholars prefer a date of authorship at the time of Solomon. “Several indications in the book would place Job’s dates in the time of the patriarchs. But the composition of the book, or at least its final form, may very well come from the first millennium, maybe in the time of the flowering of wisdom literature with Solomon. We have no way of knowing when the book was written, or when its revision was completed. But dating it late in the intertestamental period is ruled out by the appearance of translations and copies of it, notably bits of a Targum of Job in the Dead Sea Scrolls” (NET Bible, note to verse 1:1). Perhaps because he never entered the refiner's crucible, Solomon, despite a richness of material generated, never seems to achieve the depth of insight which the book of Job delivers. As a result, I myself find it unlikely that anything other than a final redaction and surface embellishment would have occurred during the time of Solomon.
Barnes argues forcefully against any authorship later than the time of Moses. Importantly he notes the total lack of reference to historical events, Hebrew laws, customs, or culture beyond the time of Abraham. Could, or would, Solomon have so thoroughly disguised himself? “We are never so betrayed as to imagine that Shakespeare lived in the time of Coriolanus or of Caesar; that Johnson lived in the time and the country of Rasselas; or that Scott lived in the times of the Crusaders... in the whole range of literature there are not probably half a dozen instances where such an expedient as this has been resorted to–where a writer has made use of a foreign or an antique dialect for the purpose of giving to the production of his pen an air of antiquity. Aristophanes and the tragedians, indeed, sometimes introduce persons speaking the dialects of parts of Greece different from that in which they had been brought up (Lee), and the same is occasionally true of Shakespeare; but except in the case of Chatterton, scarcely one has occurred where the device has been continued through a production of any considerable length. There is a moral certainty that a Hebrew would not attempt it.” (Barnes, Introduction to Job<, section 4).
Barnes prefers the notion that Moses collected and published the work, but he feels that Moses could not have been the author. The general style is not that of Moses. Moreover the intrusion of so many foreign words is not typical of the books of Moses. He concludes, “we are conducted to a conclusion tended with as much certainty as can be hoped for in the nature of the case, that the work was composed by Job himself in the period of rest and prosperity which succeeded his trials, and came to the knowledge of Moses during his residence in Arabia, and was adopted by him to represent to the Hebrews, in their trials, the duty of submission to the will of God, and to furnish the assurance that he would yet appear to crown with abundant blessings his own people, however much they might be afflicted” (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 4).
Why is the date of authorship important? If the book of Job is the beginning of the Biblical message, it contains the first mention of several key themes which pervade the Bible. Understanding of subsequent instances of the theme hinges, according to some scholars (Sorge, 14-15), on understanding the first recorded instance of that theme. If the book of Job precedes the book of Genesis, then is it surprising that the most important themes of the Bible are laid open here? The final chapter is already being telegraphed to our dulled senses in this book. Issues and themes include the Law, justification, fear of the Lord, embracing mercy, redemption and sacrifice, an advocate with God and more.
In a sense, “fear of the Lord” is where Job is forced to dwell from the end of the prologue to the end of the book. But “fear of the Lord” as a moral issue is another matter. Ecclesiastes closes with: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Eccles. 12:13-14). Compare this to Job 28:28: “And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.” While Ecclesiastes closes with this, Job continues to examine the issue, a new friend arrives to rebuke Job, and finally God appears to speak to Job. Thus, “fear the Lord” is far from the final conclusion of the book of Job. Some scholars would suggest that the point of God's speech to Job is to humble him by overpowering him, i.e. bring him to fear God, but we will see that God has much more to say than that. I believe that the problem of Solomon, the assumed author of Ecclesiastes, is that this is the conclusion of his wisdom, not the beginning. “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom” (Ps. 111:10). Solomon's fear does not strengthen him sufficiently and he succumbs to the blandishments of his wives. Job perseveres, either because of fear or dogged determination. He discovers a higher relationship to God.
The rich flow of ideas, concepts and phrases between the book of Job and other books of the Hebrew cannon indicate that either the book was an early work influencing many others or conversely it was a later work influenced by many other works. The modern scholar or writer places a great deal of importance on authorship. Similar to the ‘law of first mention’, the original author is given special respect as the originator of the thought. If the Holy Spirit is the actual source of the inspiration as we believe, then the human author is of secondary interest at best. Still we are likely to rate the book of Job more highly in our estimation if we knew that it was written by Moses and was heavily quoted throughout the rest of the Bible. Conversely, it is likely that our esteem for the material would go down if we thought that the book borrowed heavily from others and was written by an unknown scribe of the Diaspora, perhaps, as some scholars suggest, one who had never lived in Israel.
Unfortunately, we can only speculate as to who the actual author or authors were or which book of the Bible was written first. I fear that I am already veering too far from the heart of the book. “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith” (1 Tim. 1:4).
The world of Job is at once Arab and Hebrew. For this reason he is beloved in both cultures. The language of the book of Job is difficult because of the large number of words and expressions which have entered from the Arab tribes of the East. The poetry of Job is written in patterns of parallel verses, which Barnes notes is the “leading feature of the Hebrew poetry” but which is not found in Arabic poetry (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 5). These parallels, described in detail with multiple examples in Barnes, are repetitions of verses in variant or contrasting forms to greater heighten the impact of the image presented. He further suggests that although the pattern is strictly followed, the more complex patterns seen in later works of Hebrew poetry are not present. This indicates an early date of authorship (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 5).
There is not the slightest hint of the dualism, the good principle battling with an equal evil principle, which becomes prevalent in the Arab world and is now recognized in Manichaeasm. For Job and for all of his friends there is never the slightest hint that there is more than one God. There is no question that idolatry is a punishable offense to God. This clearly separates them from the surrounding cultures and makes them fully Hebrew with regards to their religious sensibilities. The God of Job is the creator of all things (12:7-10; 38:4-12) and the Lord of all things (9:12; 38:12-37).
The moral overtone that God blesses the righteous and punishes the unrighteous so pervades this work that citations are unnecessary.
The parallels between the cosmology of the book of Job with the cosmology of the book of Genesis and the rest of the Hebrew cannon are remarkable. It is definitely not the cosmology of Egypt nor of some primitive religion. In a lecture from 1957, Charles Welch describes the close affinity between the two worlds (Welch, lecture two).
The firmament of Genesis 1:6 is the Hebrew word ‘râqîya’ meaning expanse, from a root meaning something which is hammered out into a sheet (Strong, H7549). The book of Job speaks of this in two places. In chapter nine (9:8) and chapter thirty-seven: “Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?” (37:18). ‘Spread’ in the quotation is ‘râqa’, the root of ‘râqîya’ or ‘to spread’ as by hammering (Strong, H7554). The book of Revelation describes the molten glass from above before the throne of God: “And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God” (Rev. 15:2). In chapter nine, Job proclaims, “[God] Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea” (9:8). The Hebrew translated ‘spread’ here is ‘nâtâh’, to stretch or spread out as in extending one's arms (Strong, H5186). Incidental to this quote is the notion that God walks on the waves. This will have no real meaning until Jesus walks on the waters (Matt. 14:25).
Genesis 2 introduces Neshâmâh (Strong, H5397) the breath of God (Gen. 2:7) imparted to the first man Adam. This is not simply breath in the animal sense, but God's breath of life imparting the spirit of God, or ‘rûach’ (Strong, H7307). This same idea of breath is found in the book of Job: “while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils” (27:3), and again: “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life” (33:4, also 32:8). Both quotes use the words ‘neshâmâh’ for breath and ‘rûach’ for spirit.
The Hebrew view of death is complex and ambiguous, and that complexity is reflected in Job. ‘Dust to dust’ comes from Genesis 3, “for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Gen. 3:19). Job says, “wilt thou bring me into dust again?” (10:9; see also 17:16 & 20:11). Job several times refers to resting in Sheol, a place of the dead with no communication with the living (3:13-17; 10:20-22; 14:20-22; 17:11-16). This squares well with the Hebrew view of Sheol (Prov. 2:18 & 9:18; Isa. 14:9). “Shall the dead arise and praise thee?” (Ps. 88:10). “For in death there is no remembrance of thee” (Ps. 6:5). “For Sheol cannot praise thee; Death cannot celebrate thee” (Isa. 38:18). But the finality of death is contended in scripture. The concept of resurrection of the dead appears in prophecy: “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead” (Isa. 26:19). The contention over the resurrection of the dead was so intense among the Jews that Paul confounds a Jewish council by mentioning it, causing a riot (Acts 23:6-10). Job's natural mind believes that death is final: “My days are past, my purposes are broken off... where is now my hope? as for my hope, who shall see it? They shall go down to the bars of the pit, when our rest together is in the dust” (17:11,15 & 16). But the Holy Spirit speaks within him, “And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God” (19:26). Like the rest of the Hebrew cannon, the book of Job is equally ambiguous on the subject of death (Barnes, Introduction to Job, section 7).
Also from Genesis 3 is the attempt to hide transgression (Gen. 3:7) mentioned in Job 31: “If I covered my transgressions as Adam” (31:33). Transgression won't stay hidden; the blood of the innocent cries out. God hears the cry of Abel's blood (Gen. 4:10). Job will ask that God hear the cry of his own blood when he is gone: “O earth, cover not thou my blood, and let my cry have no place” (16:18). We see this again in Isaiah speaking of end times: “the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain” (Isa. 26:21).
In the heaven dwell the “sons of God” who, God tells us in the book of Job, were with Him when He laid the foundations of the earth: “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (38:7, see: Barnes, note to 38:7). The book of Genesis alludes to these ‘sons of God’ when “God said, Let us make man in our image” (Gen. 1:26). Their presence is identified when we are told of their rebellion in Genesis chapter six. In Daniel a figure “like a son of the gods” is in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (Dan. 3:25). He is identified as God's angel (Dan. 3:28). Angels (Judg. 5:20; Dan. 8:10; Rev. 1:20) and the risen Jesus (Numb. 24:17; Rev. 22:16) are represented as stars.
Satan is present with the angels in chapters one and two. It is clear that he is a tempter and an accuser (1:9-11; 2:4-5). There are indications of an angelic fall: “His angels he charged with folly” (4:18) and “If God places no trust in His holy ones, if even the heavens are not pure in His eyes” (15:15, NIV; also 25:5). The word ‘satan’ means ‘adversary’ in Hebrew. The oldest books of the Hebrew testament do not name Satan. This is used by some commentators to argue for a later authorship. In the book of Job, ‘satan’ (1:6) is always preceded by a definitive article as in ‘the satan’ (Smith 1971, 24). Clearly the author is picturing a specific being. Nevertheless the author is not meaning to imply a specific name, but naming his function. The word ‘satan’ occurs in several scriptural settings unrelated to the angel we know as Satan. In Numbers 22:22 the angel of God stands as a ‘satan’ (adversary) against Balaam. David is not allowed by the Philistines to join in battle against Israel for fear that he might be a ‘satan’ (adversary) against them (1 Sam. 29:4; a similar usage can be found in 2 Sam. 19:22). Since there is little doubt that in this case the fallen angel Lucifer is the adversary, we must conclude that this represents the original usage of what came to stick as Lucifer's name. If this conclusion is correct it would argue for an older authorship.
The God of Job does not vary in nature, name or any other attribute from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. While I'm sure we could draw out more of these intriguing connections, I believe the point should be clear that the book of Job, and the religion of Job himself, conform solidly with Hebrew cosmology and if a foreign intrusion, it represents some of the most well developed and timeless thoughts on the nature of the relationship between God and man. The book of Job needs NO updating to bring it into line with the gospel of Jesus or contemporary worship. In fact, many modern theologies, creeds and doctrines need to be revised to conform to the book of Job.
The first question is why? If Job lived in an isolated Arab area community, how is his world so readily conformed to the one that Moses, the prophets and Jesus describe? Several possibilities present themselves but I don't believe a definitive answer is possible. ONE: the book of Job, as the first book of the Bible and a work of Moses presenting his cosmology, defines Hebrew cosmology. Is it shaped by Moses in exile contemplating with sheep and goats and conversing around the fire with Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian? This implies that certain liberties were taken in the writing of the tale, which is possible if Moses wrote it in a somewhat autobiographical mood. TWO: Similar to the first notion, it may have been written by much later authors, who adapted the story to their cosmology. It is hard to imagine that they would have taken the liberty of updating the cosmology but not update the story to fit more snuggly into Hebrew history. Reading Job, the cosmology does not appear to be pasted on as this approach would imply. It would be hard to separate the story from the cosmology. THREE: the understanding of God that Job knows and the understanding of God by Abraham are the same on all the basic points. In essence the story flows out of the same basic tradition and history. This makes perfect sense if Abraham or Nahor is Job's ancestor. This seems by far the best possibility: Job and his friends were descendants or close relatives of Abraham or his brother Nahor.
I am not a biblical scholar and don't wish to present myself as such. I don't read Hebrew or Greek. I do avail myself of the summations available in popular commentaries and Bible resources such as Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, available in QuickVerse, the free e-Sword or other Bible software. I have two years of seminary education. My goal is to dig out meaning that ministers to the soul. Ministering to the soul has the chief aim of removing blockages which stop the flow of the Holy Spirit.
The Bible was not written for the benefit of scholars. Scholarship should be able to add new and greater dimensions and clarify the meaning of authors several millenia distant from us. Scholars have a tendency to become trapped in minutiae. Heavy reliance on scholarship can lead to tunnel vision, blinding us to the full meaning of the text. Unfortunately, some scholarship is for personal aggrandizement and not edification: “The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain” (1 Cor. 3:20). My preference is to grasp the largest meaning and work backwards to the details. I don't wish to dispute respectable scholarship, but other meanings may exist which may be more important in ministering.
The third century Biblical scholar Origen notes that some meanings are hidden from those who are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. “The Scriptures were composed through the Spirit of God, and have both a meaning which is obvious and another which is hidden from most readers.” As a result “The inspired meaning is not recognized by all–only those who are gifted with the grace of the Holy Spirit in the word of wisdom and knowledge” (quoted in: The Bible Through the Ages, 209). “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).
Some scholarship opposes the inspired meaning. Any scholarship which seeks to explain away or heavily “demythologize” the Bible is destructive to the Bible's intent: ministry. As such, I avoid such presuppositions as being inspired by he that would discredit or render ineffective the word of God, Satan. While a crumb of truth may fall, it is much more likely that seeds of confusion, doubt and error will poison the study. Some scholars then try to “re-mythologize” the Bible, which amounts to breathing our own life back in, after having stripped the book of God inspired meaning.
Scholarship which adapts the Bible to popular social theory or cultural trends, or denigrates portions of the Bible as being of a less progressive mind-set is equally destructive. The bedrock of such thinking is that the Bible was a work of men and is therefore fallible. The hubris of the presupposition that the wisdom of these modern scholars exceeds that of the inspired writings of the prophets and apostles is incredible. That said, it is occasionally important to answer questions pertaining to current trends, particularly popular heresies. I am finding that the Bible is always right. “Who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?” (1 Cor. 2:16).
The Bible is richly poetic, presenting multiple meanings and layers of depth by which the Holy Spirit is able to minister different things at different times. Because the meaning is as rich as you and I are complex, there can be no definitive commentary. When you re-read the same passages, new doors open continually. Any commentary, my own included, should be considered to be a set of notes, which may help you dig into the deeper meanings. Some commentary distorts the meaning, causing a stumbling block instead of an aid to the richer truths.
Since the Bible is meant for application in your life, the best commentary is what the Holy Spirit is trying to tell you right now. When something you read in the Bible is confusing or your mind blanks when you read a particular passage, there is probably a reason. Go back, ponder the passage, dig out the meaning, ask your spiritual authorities, in other words, make it easy for the Holy Spirit to speak to you. “Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). If you are being led astray by other thoughts, examine the source. The Bible is meant for you. The enemy will tell you that you are incapable understanding it. If you persevere it will minister to you. If your thoughts are redirected to study some tangential question, look carefully at the question, and ask does this really matter? Answer the questions that matter.
Unless you are a Bible scholar, Bible study should not be an academic enterprise. Bible knowledge should not be your source of ‘brownie points’ in church. Study the Bible so that you can cut through the enemies' lies. How many current heresies would disappear if we would but read and study our whole Bible, instead of select passages. Study the Bible to know God, to understand His will and his workings, so that you can minister and you can be ministered to.
|
back |
next |
|
Top |
Table of Contents |
Index to Key Themes |
Burning Coal |
New Wine Online |