Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The Book of Job can be considered as one of the most philosophical works of the Old Testament. The uniqueness of the Book of Job is in its “depth and thoroughness in dealing with the relationship of human suffering to divine justice” (Gaebelein, 1979-1992, 843). The commonly accepted notion that good doing is rewarded, while evil-doing is punished, is challenged, changing the nature of knowledge about God and human suffering. Such shift can be specifically attributed to the paradox of God’s presence, i.e. explaining the suffering as the absence of God’s justice and at the same time God’s presence is the cause of much suffering, where Job’s sufferings are “the heavy hand of God on him” (Thomason, 1997, 57). The latter can be evident in the third cycle of the dialogue dispute between Job and his friends. In that regard, this paper attempts to construe Job’s reply to Eliphaz in Job 23:1-17, stating that despite Job’s righteousness, his limited knowledge and his human perspective, he had faith that righteousness will be rewarded after all. Accordingly, the lack of understanding of the notion of submission and God’s presence caused some doubts in his mind that he overcame, which explains the differences in Jobs’s image in the prologue, the epilogue and discussion parts.
Exegesis
Acceptance and submission
The chapter 23 serves as Job’s reply to Eliphaz’s questions in the previous chapter, which represent the limited knowledge of humans on God’s purpose. Eliphaz questions the righteousness of Job, “Is it for your piety that he reproves you, and enters into judgment with you?” (Job 22:4 NRS). The following assumptions of Job’s sins, demonstrate the presumptive and arrogant claim to knowledge of God’s ways” (Gaebelein, 1979-1992, 860). Job’s reply is also a demonstration of a human’s perspective, providing his own definition of submission to God’s will, i.e. not departing from the “מִצְוָה” (Strong’s 4687: commandment; law; ordinance). Job’s perception of submission can be seen in the way he characterizes his attitude toward God’s words, “צָפַן” (Strong’s 4687), treasuring up and saving them (Job 23:12 NRS). It can be understood that Job’s “arguments”, from the Hebrew word “תּוֹכַחַת” (Strong’s number 8433b: in this context and considering the context, rebuke can be used rather than argument), are mainly concerned with Job following the commandment. However, elements are differing from God’s perspective on submission, and which Job, even following God’s words did not comprehend. One of such elements is the fact of Job lifting his voice in protest (Bartlett and Taylor, 2009, 148). The latter can be seen in the usage of such words as “מְרִי” (Strong’s number 4805: rebellious), and “אֲנָחָה” (Strong’s number 0585: expressing grief or physical distress), referring to the feeling that overwhelms Job. Specifically, the usage of the word “מְרִי” (4805) can be outlined, where the translation as rebellion is not a coincidence, considering the usage of the Hebrew term in conjunction with the word “רַע” (Strong’s number 07451b: evil, harm, calamity, trouble); “Evil people seek only rebellion, but a cruel messenger will be sent against them” (Pro 17:11 NRS).
Rebellion (“מְרִי”), in regards of submission and acceptance, can be seen in the definitions of rebellion in the books of Samuel and Ezekiel, “For rebellion is no less a sin than divination, and stubbornness is like iniquity and idolatry (1Sa 15:23 NRS); “do not be rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth and eat what I give you” (Eze 2:8 NRS). Although such departure in the character of Job at the beginning of the book and latter passages, from being presented as “a saint of God who will not curse God and die” to having complaints that are “bitter to the point of being shocking” (Gaebelein, 1979-1992, 845), there is a unity in terms of the fear of injustice, referred by Ginsberg as being peculiar to Jews (Pope, 1974, XLII). Although such assertion might be mitigated, the Hebrew word “בפַּחַד” (Strong’s number 6343: dread, and the corresponding derived verb 6342) can be found nine times in the Book of Job. Nevertheless, with the fear and obedience, Job lacked an important element, demonstrated in his reply to Eliphaz, i.e. having rebellious complaints, with the root word of the latter, i.e. “מָרָה” (Strong’s number 4784: being rebellious, disobedient, refractory), being conditioned with the fear of God; “If you will fear the LORD and serve him and heed his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD…, it will be well” (1Sa 12:14 NRS). Nevertheless, it should be stated that the problem of Job is not in God’s attributes, rather with another significant element in the book, i.e. questioning the presence-absence of God.
The absence of God
It can be seen from Job’s response to Eliphaz that God’s absence is an essential factor in such reply (Bartlett and Taylor, 2009, 151). On the one hand, Job feels God’s hands through his sufferings, while on the other hand, Job states, “If I go forward, he is not there; or backward, I cannot perceive him (Job 23:8 NRS). In the following verse, Job continues, “on the left he hides, and I cannot behold him; I turn to the right, but I cannot see him” (Job 23:9 NRS)”. In those two verses the main emphasis can be understood through the usage of the words perceive, behold and see (Job 23:8-9 NRS), i.e. “בִּין” (Strong’s number 0995), “חָזָה” (Strong’s number 2372), and “רָאָה” (Strong’s number 7200) respectively. It can be seen that in addition to the physical sight of the justice of God, for Job, the conclusion about God’s absence is largely based on his disability to understand and comprehend. The latter show, to an extent, that Job follows the logic of his friends, i.e. “it is impossible that he should suffer so and not have done wrong”, so he does not see God as “he is pious and so does not deserve the punishment he is receiving” (Dunn and Rogerson, 2003, 339).
Such blindness in Job’s case, i.e. the incapability of understanding God’s purpose is driven by the limitedness of human perspective. In that regard, such limited perspective is only from Job’s side, where Job acknowledges despite not seeing Him, God “knows the way” Job takes (Job 23:10 NRS). In that regard, it can be stated that comprehension of God in Job’s reply is twofold, where on the one hand, he complains of his sufferings, not seeing God, and on the other, he acknowledges that this is a test. The latter can be seen through the verse “when he has tested me, I shall come out like gold” (Job 23:10 NRS). The Hebrew term “בָּחַן” (Strong’s number 0975: to examine, to prove), implies examining the nature of the person, wherein the Old Testament is used in conjunction with such words as “test my heart and mind” (Psa 26:2 NRS) and “test me and know my thoughts” (Psa 139:23 NRS). In both cases, it can be implied that such test investigates whether the person is worthy. Accordingly, the same term can be used when testing gold, which was used in the verse as a figure of speech, meaning that Job will prove worthy of the test. Such confidence contradicts the beginning of the chapter, in which Job is desperate in his sufferings, which might assume that Job has doubts in his righteousness. In that regard, it can be said that the verses in which Job confirms his obedience to God might be addressed to himself as well, specifically considering his fear of God and his limited knowledge, he does not God’s purposes, and thus, meeting God does not know the outcome of such meeting (Thomason, 1997, 57). Such statement opposes the view that God vindicating Job over his friends is a suggestion that questioning the relationship with God in an angry manner is better than “to accept stock answers as the friends have done” (Dunn and Rogerson, 2003, 339). It was a purpose of God to test Job, whose heart was made soft, to give him knowledge that could not understand at the time, “Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know” (Job 42:3 NRS).
Conclusion
It can be concluded that human limited knowledge might change their perception of the way right and evil are reattributed, which is seen through the example of Job. The pace of the Book of Job has coincided with the doubts that might have across Job’s heart. The Book of Job has a purpose that cannot be reduced to a simple statement (Gaebelein, 1979-1992, 858), where the tests that Job was put into was to strengthen his faith, through removing the doubts caused by his limited understanding of God’s presence and what the submission to God is, and when his rebellious attitudes dissolve, and resentment disappears, he came to accept God on God’s terms (Gaebelein, 1979-1992, 860). Such a point of spiritual maturity would not have been achieved without the sufferings that Job has gone through removing his doubts.
References
Bartlett, David Lyon, and Barbara Brown Taylor, eds. 2009. Feasting on the Word Year B : Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary. 1st ed. Vol. 4. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Dunn, James D. G., and J. W. Rogerson. 2003. Eerdmans commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
Gaebelein, Frank E., ed. 1979-1992. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
Pope, Marvin H. 1974. Job in the Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday & Company Inc.
Thomason, Bill. 1997. God on Trial: The Book of Job and Human Suffering. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.