In this chapter, Job repents and God restores him to his former glory.
This is the final chapter in the book of Job. It’s a deceptively short chapter for how much it impacts the overall narrative and moral of the story.
There are two really big events in this chapter. The first is when Job speaks in verses 2-6 and his big conclusion is “repenting in dust and ashes” (v. 6). Job admits that he “declared that which I did not understand”, that he was speaking about things without knowledge. The “things too wonderful for me” in this case is referring to Job’s assertions that God has been punishing him unfairly. More generally, Job admits that he is simply not qualified to judge God’s conduct or ascribe any blame to God for the things that Job has suffered.
God challenged Job, “will you really annul my judgments? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” (Job 40:8). In this chapter, Job answers with a definitive no. He cannot, and will not, condemn God because Job simply does not understand the ways of God. Job cannot judge God in matters that he does not understand, and Job recognizes that when he previously questioned God, he was speaking without knowledge.
The second big thing is that when Job prays for his friends, God “restores his fortune”, giving him back double of everything he had lost.
In many places, Job’s friends had been appealing for him to repent of his sins and that God would restore him. Ironically, it appears this is almost exactly what happened. Job repented of questioning God, and God restored him. To be sure, Job did not have any sins that caused his suffering in the first place; God himself called Job “blameless and upright” (Job 1:8). He does repent, though, even if it doesn’t line up exactly. I call this ironic because one of the most significant points in Job is criticizing and refuting the conventional theology of the three friends. They were wrong about Job, they accused him repeatedly of wickedness as the root cause of his suffering, and it was simply never true. Yet here at the very end, Job does end up repenting.
I don’t think the author of Job put this in to secretly reaffirm the three friends, contrary to the rest of the book. Instead, I think both Job’s repentance and his restoration to glory serve separate purposes.
Job’s role in this story is to represent the suffering righteous person. As such, we can view Job’s reaction to his suffering as emblematic of the “natural response” of any righteous person to suffering. Job questions God’s fairness and justice, because he simply doesn’t see or understand the reason why he is suffering. This is how nearly anyone would react, even “good people” like Job. Job’s repentance is how the author of Job asserts that we, too, must change the way we think, repent of blaming God for our suffering, and continue to trust and honor God even in our suffering. Job is all about changing our perspective, and we are encouraged to emulate Job’s repentance.
Job’s restoration to prosperity, health and glory is a reaffirmation of God’s identity as the ultimate judge, protector of the righteous and punisher of the wicked. Job is righteous, so his restoration here is a final conclusive statement about the ultimate fate of the righteous. While we may suffer for a time, God promises us a final blessing.
This restoration was not obvious from the earlier parts of the book. I don’t think we could have necessarily predicted it, and if Job ended his life dying from disease and suffering, it would have changed the tone of the story considerably but it would not have meaningfully contradicted any of the earlier text. This makes the restoration of Job a pivotal moment. It’s short, but it dramatically changes the meaning of this book. We can view suffering not as our ultimate fate, but only a temporary condition until God restores us, blesses us and gives us double what we have lost.
One common tension with the book of Job is that people look at this story and point at modern stories of “suffering righteous” who die and never see that restoration in their earthly life. These examples are held up as a contradiction to Job, as though the existence of other suffering people who (as far as we know) are never restored refutes the theology of Job.
A common reaction to this criticism is to spiritualize Job’s restoration and assert that for some people they are restored during their earthly life, but that other people are restored and receive God’s blessing in the afterlife. We may suffer while on earth, but that God promises our ultimate blessing and restoration when we return to him.
I would propose a second reaction, however. Not that the first one is wrong, I do believe that God promises all the suffering righteous an ultimate restoration, whether in this life or the next. In addition to that, I claim that asserting apparent contradictions to Job’s restoration is ignoring all of the most important parts of Job. The most important part of Job is God’s response in chapters 38-41, where the fundamental premise is that God has a greater wisdom and understanding and that we, humans on earth, simply do not understand God’s ways and his wisdom.
To claim a logical contradiction with Job’s restoration (because we do not see everyone restored to prosperity) is effectively applying the wisdom of men to the ways of God, and returning to the role of judging God and condemning God. This is exactly what Job repented of doing, and now we are doing it again.
Frankly, I don’t think the book of Job promises that the righteous will all be restored. Job is restored, but God does not state this as a promise. We might be restored, and we might not. The point of Job is not to promise us restoration, it is to promise us that God has a wisdom greater than any human understanding, and that we have to respect and honor God’s supremacy.
What can I say in conclusion of this book? I think Job is a challenging book to analyze overall. The topic, why do bad things happen to good people, is a remarkably difficult philosophical question despite how easy it is to ask. It is so easy for us to entangle the question with our own personal emotions, and we see exactly that happen in this book with both Job and his friends responding emotionally in a variety of places. God’s response feels frustratingly indirect, though I believe upon deeper reflection that God is indeed speaking to human suffering and gives us the best answer we can really hope for.
Even in God’s answer, there is a sense of “this is a very hard question and you will not understand the answer”. It might be true, but humans are a curious and inquisitive race, and we rarely take these kinds of answers with any sense of satisfaction. If I answer a question with “you could not possibly understand my answer”, it might be true but it feels evasive and is unsatisfying, because when we ask a question what we are seeking is understanding.
On the other hand, if it’s actually true that we cannot understand the answer, then there isn’t anything else God could tell us that would do better. If he tried telling us the real reason, we wouldn’t understand it, and if he ignored the question then that would feel even more evasive and unsatisfying. This is a tough spot and there might not be anything that God could say that would leave us happy or satisfied, so he does the most respectful thing possible and simply tells us the truth.
It’s also worth mentioning that God’s response to Job is strikingly impersonal. Much earlier in this commentary I raised the question of how Job and his three friends view God. I asked how they perceived God, and how they framed their interactions with God. My answer, in broad terms, is that they perceived God as the judge of human conduct. God is the lawgiver who has defined good and evil, blesses those who do good and punishes those who do evil. This is itself impersonal because, besides denying any close relationship between God and people, it also frames God as emotionally neutral or distant.
In God’s response, that emotional neutrality is reinforced. Read through God’s response again and look for any place at all where God speaks about his feelings in any way. Is God a friend of Job? Is God happy or sad about anything? We don’t see any evidence of it. God contradicts the three friends in other ways, but in this way they seem to be correct.
It’s tough for me to close out this commentary. With such a deep book, I feel like there is always something more that I should be saying, or some other point I should be making. Nevertheless, I will close out my commentary here. If my readers are left unsatisfied with God’s answer, or some question that does not feel properly answered, I would encourage them to pursue a deeper understanding, and I pray that God would grant it to you.
Next, we will enter the book of Psalms.
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Saturday, September 15, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 41
In this chapter, God describes Leviathan, the greatest monster in all creation.
This chapter is a continuation of God’s discourse in the previous chapter. The end of last chapter (Job 40:15-24) begins with a challenge: “Behold now, Behemoth”. This chapter begins with, “Can you draw out Leviathan?” There are many obvious parallels between these creatures in both their description and function in the text. They are, like the rest of creation highlighted by God, examples of ferocious and untameable monsters created by God, feared by men, and tangible symbols of God’s supreme power and authority over creation. Apex monsters, they are the greatest, strongest and strangest creatures that God has made and as such they represent all of creation.
The descriptions in this chapter follow two patterns. They either highlight the strength and danger of the Leviathan, or they highlight the uncontrollable temper of the beast. It is strong, invincible, aggressive and does not submit to human control.
What is the purpose? Why is this description here? It’s quite similar to God’s discourse in chapters 38-39. In those chapters, God was highlight the aspects of creation that exceed human understanding, wisdom and power. In all of these ways, God was using creation to show his supremacy over human authority. Presenting the Behemoth and Leviathan for our inspection accomplishes the same purpose. The strong, fearsome monster was created by a strong, uncontrollable God. As with the previous chapters, we can perceive the nature of the created by studying the creation. As I previously mentioned, Leviathan is an apex predator and symbolically represents all of creation.
From that point of view, I don’t think this chapter has a different intent or purpose than the previous three chapters, I think it is meant as the conclusion and summary of the points from those chapters.
The English word “Leviathan” itself is a simple transliteration of the Hebrew word from this chapter. It’s one of the many cases in the bible where the English translation simply takes the Hebrew word and transliterates it into the Roman alphabet. It has since entered English vocabulary to describe a kind of sea monster or a giant of some kind. This is pretty much exactly what it means here as well, except that the text almost certainly referring to a particular species. In the past, Leviathan was sometimes identified with a “dragon” or “sea serpent”. In modern times, the most popular identification for Leviathan is with a crocodile. The general reasoning is that Leviathan has “armor” (v. 13), it is armored underneath as well (v. 30), which may suggest a crocodile. “Spreading out… in the mire” (v. 30) is also possibly a reference to crocodilian behavior.
There are elements that don’t match a crocodile, however. The obvious one is “a flame goes forth from his mouth” (v. 18-21). Leviathan is described as a fire-breathing monster that also has burning bright eyes. It is also described as impervious to swords, arrows, javelins, etc. These may be regarded as poetic hyperbole (that is, exaggeration), but it certainly doesn’t match with a conventional crocodile. Certainly crocodiles are armored and somewhat resistant to weaponry, we can reasonably assert that they don’t breath fire and that an iron sword could easily cut through their hide and cause serious damage. These are both reasons why Leviathan was historically associated with dragons. Furthermore, the word “Leviathan” itself is derived from a Hebrew root word that means curved or coiled, which also implies that Leviathan may be a long, twisty coiled serpent, perhaps like a snake or a mythical dragon.
People have been speculating about the identities of both the Leviathan and the Behemoth for a long time. The good news is that it doesn’t really change our proper interpretation of the text, so we don’t need to enter into those speculations to understand the meaning of this chapter.
Verse 34 concludes with Leviathan as “king over all the sons of pride”. There is nothing greater in all of creation, and God is the great one who has made Leviathan as well as everything else.
In the next chapter, the book of Job draws to a close, Job admits defeat and repents before God.
This chapter is a continuation of God’s discourse in the previous chapter. The end of last chapter (Job 40:15-24) begins with a challenge: “Behold now, Behemoth”. This chapter begins with, “Can you draw out Leviathan?” There are many obvious parallels between these creatures in both their description and function in the text. They are, like the rest of creation highlighted by God, examples of ferocious and untameable monsters created by God, feared by men, and tangible symbols of God’s supreme power and authority over creation. Apex monsters, they are the greatest, strongest and strangest creatures that God has made and as such they represent all of creation.
The descriptions in this chapter follow two patterns. They either highlight the strength and danger of the Leviathan, or they highlight the uncontrollable temper of the beast. It is strong, invincible, aggressive and does not submit to human control.
What is the purpose? Why is this description here? It’s quite similar to God’s discourse in chapters 38-39. In those chapters, God was highlight the aspects of creation that exceed human understanding, wisdom and power. In all of these ways, God was using creation to show his supremacy over human authority. Presenting the Behemoth and Leviathan for our inspection accomplishes the same purpose. The strong, fearsome monster was created by a strong, uncontrollable God. As with the previous chapters, we can perceive the nature of the created by studying the creation. As I previously mentioned, Leviathan is an apex predator and symbolically represents all of creation.
From that point of view, I don’t think this chapter has a different intent or purpose than the previous three chapters, I think it is meant as the conclusion and summary of the points from those chapters.
The English word “Leviathan” itself is a simple transliteration of the Hebrew word from this chapter. It’s one of the many cases in the bible where the English translation simply takes the Hebrew word and transliterates it into the Roman alphabet. It has since entered English vocabulary to describe a kind of sea monster or a giant of some kind. This is pretty much exactly what it means here as well, except that the text almost certainly referring to a particular species. In the past, Leviathan was sometimes identified with a “dragon” or “sea serpent”. In modern times, the most popular identification for Leviathan is with a crocodile. The general reasoning is that Leviathan has “armor” (v. 13), it is armored underneath as well (v. 30), which may suggest a crocodile. “Spreading out… in the mire” (v. 30) is also possibly a reference to crocodilian behavior.
There are elements that don’t match a crocodile, however. The obvious one is “a flame goes forth from his mouth” (v. 18-21). Leviathan is described as a fire-breathing monster that also has burning bright eyes. It is also described as impervious to swords, arrows, javelins, etc. These may be regarded as poetic hyperbole (that is, exaggeration), but it certainly doesn’t match with a conventional crocodile. Certainly crocodiles are armored and somewhat resistant to weaponry, we can reasonably assert that they don’t breath fire and that an iron sword could easily cut through their hide and cause serious damage. These are both reasons why Leviathan was historically associated with dragons. Furthermore, the word “Leviathan” itself is derived from a Hebrew root word that means curved or coiled, which also implies that Leviathan may be a long, twisty coiled serpent, perhaps like a snake or a mythical dragon.
People have been speculating about the identities of both the Leviathan and the Behemoth for a long time. The good news is that it doesn’t really change our proper interpretation of the text, so we don’t need to enter into those speculations to understand the meaning of this chapter.
Verse 34 concludes with Leviathan as “king over all the sons of pride”. There is nothing greater in all of creation, and God is the great one who has made Leviathan as well as everything else.
In the next chapter, the book of Job draws to a close, Job admits defeat and repents before God.
Friday, September 14, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 40
In this chapter, God challenges Job to answer him.
This chapter begins with God asking for Job’s response. After laying out the glory of creation, God’s role in making all of these things, and Job’s ignorance regarding creation, God now asks Job to “answer” his questions (v. 2). Job’s response in verses 3-4 is that there is nothing he can say to answer God. While God has seemingly already made his point, and Job acknowledges his rhetorical defeat, God decides to continue his rebuke.
In verse 6, we see that God continues to speak out of the storm, like the “whirlwind” of Job 38:1. God also repeats the same challenge in verse 7 as what he said in Job 38:3.
Since God has established his wisdom and understanding of all things, and since Job has admitted defeat, God now speaks to the heart of Job’s criticism in verses 8-14. Verse 8 captures the essence of Job’s criticism. In arguing that he was innocent and God was punishing him unjustly, Job was “condemning” God as a natural consequence of his argument. If God is punishing Job unfairly, it means that God is doing something wrong and Job was innocent.
This is very similar to what Job’s friends were arguing. They believed that it was a zero-sum game between God and Job. If Job was innocent, then God was treating him unfairly, while if Job was a sinner, then God was right to punish him. Since they believed that God was always righteous, Job’s friends concluded that Job must have sinned. I don’t think God is necessarily saying that their assumptions were right or that their arguments were correct, but rather that Job’s argument in fact laid the blame on God for what happened to him.
It is important to note that nowhere in this speech does God actually accuse Job of sinning or doing anything wrong. The only criticism that God has for Job is how Job condemned God as a result of his self-proclaimed innocence.
God is not affirming their moral philosophy or assumptions. If their philosophy were true, then the natural conclusion is that Job is a sinner and God likely would have said so. Instead, God is challenging Job for “throwing him under the bus”, so to speak. The firm belief in his own innocence, combined with a moral framework that places God as the punisher of iniquity, leads Job to condemn God. God rebukes Job’s impious conclusion, and since God does not condemn Job in turn, he is implicitly questioning Job’s moral framework and assumptions. It was the this oppositional moral framework, placing God and Job on opposite sides of the tables, that led Job to condemn God and Job’s friends to condemn Job. Since God declares his own innocence, and refuses to condemn Job, the only natural conclusion is that the moral framework itself is flawed.
God is indeed the righteous judge, and God does punish the wicked, but it’s not in the simplified way presented by Job and his friends. The true nature of God, and the nature of Job’s suffering, is left to us as a bit of a mystery even after God’s response. God never fully clarifies these issues or the nature of Job’s theological error. What we do see clearly is a statement of God’s supreme wisdom and authority in creation and by extension in human lives and morality. We also see that the simplified moral philosophy of Job and his friends is deeply flawed. A deeper understanding of the nature of God is largely outside the scope of this book, and it is left to us to pursue that understanding. While that may seem daunting, we still have the rest of the bible to read to gain a better understanding of God’s nature.
Beginning in verse 15, God resumes his former discourse and challenges Job to demonstrate his mastery over “Behemoth”. In case you are wondering, “Behemoth” is actually a literal transliteration of the Hebrew word, which was later adopted into English. The exact identification of “Behemoth” has been the subject of some debate and controversy, but the general consensus now is that Behemoth is a hippopotamus. The description certainly fits (with a bit of exaggeration) for a vegetarian, strong mammal that tends to live in watery environments like rivers or ponds. They are also fearsome, aggressive animals that are endemic to the Middle East. We can’t know for sure but it is a likely candidate.
God’s description of “Behemoth” is much longer than his description of specific animals from the previous chapter, but the overall intent is similar. God is now laying out the “fearsome monsters” that he has created as further examples of his glory. If creation is a reflection of God’s nature, in the way that God speaks through the thunderstorm, then the Behemoth is a reflection of God’s untameable power and wild ferocity. In Elihu’s words, “God is great, and we have not known him” (Job 36:26). The Behemoth shows us God’s power, and it is an untameable, uncontrollable power. Otherwise, the rest of the description of Behemoth is largely poetic.
In the next chapter, describes a second “monster” from natural creation.
This chapter begins with God asking for Job’s response. After laying out the glory of creation, God’s role in making all of these things, and Job’s ignorance regarding creation, God now asks Job to “answer” his questions (v. 2). Job’s response in verses 3-4 is that there is nothing he can say to answer God. While God has seemingly already made his point, and Job acknowledges his rhetorical defeat, God decides to continue his rebuke.
In verse 6, we see that God continues to speak out of the storm, like the “whirlwind” of Job 38:1. God also repeats the same challenge in verse 7 as what he said in Job 38:3.
Since God has established his wisdom and understanding of all things, and since Job has admitted defeat, God now speaks to the heart of Job’s criticism in verses 8-14. Verse 8 captures the essence of Job’s criticism. In arguing that he was innocent and God was punishing him unjustly, Job was “condemning” God as a natural consequence of his argument. If God is punishing Job unfairly, it means that God is doing something wrong and Job was innocent.
This is very similar to what Job’s friends were arguing. They believed that it was a zero-sum game between God and Job. If Job was innocent, then God was treating him unfairly, while if Job was a sinner, then God was right to punish him. Since they believed that God was always righteous, Job’s friends concluded that Job must have sinned. I don’t think God is necessarily saying that their assumptions were right or that their arguments were correct, but rather that Job’s argument in fact laid the blame on God for what happened to him.
It is important to note that nowhere in this speech does God actually accuse Job of sinning or doing anything wrong. The only criticism that God has for Job is how Job condemned God as a result of his self-proclaimed innocence.
God is not affirming their moral philosophy or assumptions. If their philosophy were true, then the natural conclusion is that Job is a sinner and God likely would have said so. Instead, God is challenging Job for “throwing him under the bus”, so to speak. The firm belief in his own innocence, combined with a moral framework that places God as the punisher of iniquity, leads Job to condemn God. God rebukes Job’s impious conclusion, and since God does not condemn Job in turn, he is implicitly questioning Job’s moral framework and assumptions. It was the this oppositional moral framework, placing God and Job on opposite sides of the tables, that led Job to condemn God and Job’s friends to condemn Job. Since God declares his own innocence, and refuses to condemn Job, the only natural conclusion is that the moral framework itself is flawed.
God is indeed the righteous judge, and God does punish the wicked, but it’s not in the simplified way presented by Job and his friends. The true nature of God, and the nature of Job’s suffering, is left to us as a bit of a mystery even after God’s response. God never fully clarifies these issues or the nature of Job’s theological error. What we do see clearly is a statement of God’s supreme wisdom and authority in creation and by extension in human lives and morality. We also see that the simplified moral philosophy of Job and his friends is deeply flawed. A deeper understanding of the nature of God is largely outside the scope of this book, and it is left to us to pursue that understanding. While that may seem daunting, we still have the rest of the bible to read to gain a better understanding of God’s nature.
Beginning in verse 15, God resumes his former discourse and challenges Job to demonstrate his mastery over “Behemoth”. In case you are wondering, “Behemoth” is actually a literal transliteration of the Hebrew word, which was later adopted into English. The exact identification of “Behemoth” has been the subject of some debate and controversy, but the general consensus now is that Behemoth is a hippopotamus. The description certainly fits (with a bit of exaggeration) for a vegetarian, strong mammal that tends to live in watery environments like rivers or ponds. They are also fearsome, aggressive animals that are endemic to the Middle East. We can’t know for sure but it is a likely candidate.
God’s description of “Behemoth” is much longer than his description of specific animals from the previous chapter, but the overall intent is similar. God is now laying out the “fearsome monsters” that he has created as further examples of his glory. If creation is a reflection of God’s nature, in the way that God speaks through the thunderstorm, then the Behemoth is a reflection of God’s untameable power and wild ferocity. In Elihu’s words, “God is great, and we have not known him” (Job 36:26). The Behemoth shows us God’s power, and it is an untameable, uncontrollable power. Otherwise, the rest of the description of Behemoth is largely poetic.
In the next chapter, describes a second “monster” from natural creation.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 39
In this chapter, God continues questioning Job about the natural world.
This chapter goes through a series of mostly wild animals (including a reference to domesticated horses but that is the exception), questioning whether Job understands and controls the lives of those animals.
This continues the general theme of the previous chapter but in a different direction. In the previous chapter, the general topic was hidden or untraveled places. God was challenging Job about whether he knows or has traveled to the bottom of the ocean, to the “gates of death”, into the constellations, and whether he was present for the creation of the world.
In this chapter, God continues to challenge Job, but now Job is being questioned about his knowledge of, and authority over, wild animals. In some ways this knowledge is more relatable than the questions in the previous chapter, because Job (and everyone else) would at least know about wild donkeys and hawks and eagles and so forth. On the other hand, I believe God is intentionally choosing wild animals because they are dangerous and uncontrollable, and God is questioning whether Job has authority over these animals.
For instance, “is it by your understanding that the hawk soars”, “do you give the horse his might”, “can you bind the wild ox”, “who sent out the wild donkey free”, etc. God is asking whether Job created these animals, tying each question to one of the defining characteristics of that particular species. Each species is unique, distinct and wildly uncontrollable, and the questions and designed to highlight those attributes. The challenge, then, is whether Job has authority and power over the created animals.
From the general tone of the chapter, it is obvious that the answer to all of these questions is supposed to be no. Job does NOT know when the mountain goats give birth, or how the hawk soars, and he has not given strength to horses or oxen or anything else. The whole point of this chapter is to describe the many areas of the natural world about which Job is ignorant. This, in sum, reinforces the same point over and over: that God has a wisdom and understanding that Job lacks, and that Job simply does not have the wisdom to challenge God’s judgment.
In that regard, it’s quite similar to the previous chapter and we can understand it the same way. This is another, more tangible but still uncontrollable realm of diverse creation, and it lies outside the power of humanity. Since this chapter has the same intent as the previous chapter, I would encourage my readers to look through my commentary for that chapter as well, and also read the text for chapters 38 and 39 at the same time since they are best understood together.
In the next chapter, God continues challenging Job to match him in power and wisdom.
This chapter goes through a series of mostly wild animals (including a reference to domesticated horses but that is the exception), questioning whether Job understands and controls the lives of those animals.
This continues the general theme of the previous chapter but in a different direction. In the previous chapter, the general topic was hidden or untraveled places. God was challenging Job about whether he knows or has traveled to the bottom of the ocean, to the “gates of death”, into the constellations, and whether he was present for the creation of the world.
In this chapter, God continues to challenge Job, but now Job is being questioned about his knowledge of, and authority over, wild animals. In some ways this knowledge is more relatable than the questions in the previous chapter, because Job (and everyone else) would at least know about wild donkeys and hawks and eagles and so forth. On the other hand, I believe God is intentionally choosing wild animals because they are dangerous and uncontrollable, and God is questioning whether Job has authority over these animals.
For instance, “is it by your understanding that the hawk soars”, “do you give the horse his might”, “can you bind the wild ox”, “who sent out the wild donkey free”, etc. God is asking whether Job created these animals, tying each question to one of the defining characteristics of that particular species. Each species is unique, distinct and wildly uncontrollable, and the questions and designed to highlight those attributes. The challenge, then, is whether Job has authority and power over the created animals.
From the general tone of the chapter, it is obvious that the answer to all of these questions is supposed to be no. Job does NOT know when the mountain goats give birth, or how the hawk soars, and he has not given strength to horses or oxen or anything else. The whole point of this chapter is to describe the many areas of the natural world about which Job is ignorant. This, in sum, reinforces the same point over and over: that God has a wisdom and understanding that Job lacks, and that Job simply does not have the wisdom to challenge God’s judgment.
In that regard, it’s quite similar to the previous chapter and we can understand it the same way. This is another, more tangible but still uncontrollable realm of diverse creation, and it lies outside the power of humanity. Since this chapter has the same intent as the previous chapter, I would encourage my readers to look through my commentary for that chapter as well, and also read the text for chapters 38 and 39 at the same time since they are best understood together.
In the next chapter, God continues challenging Job to match him in power and wisdom.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 38
In this chapter, God challenges Job to explain how much understanding and authority he possesses over the natural world.
In verse 1, God speaks out of the storm, blurs the line between metaphor and reality. Elihu had used the thunderstorm as a rhetorical device to describe God’s nature. We don’t have to believe that God is literally in the storm to derive meaning from Elihu’s speech. Yet, at least in this particular instance, we discover that God is literally in the storm, and when the storm arrives God begins his response to Job.
This is the final speech in the book. Job’s three friends have already been silenced (Job 32:1). Job himself “concluded his remarks” (Job 31:40). Elihu himself has finished speaking, so only God is left with anything to say. And what is there for God to say? As I mentioned in a previous commentary, God’s discourse in substantially similar to what Elihu was saying in chapter 37. In that chapter, Elihu was repeatedly questioning whether Job has the knowledge or power of God, specifically related to natural phenomena associated with a thunderstorm.
In this chapter, God does the same thing, except broadening his questions to cover all of created history from the beginning of the universe. God’s very first question, after challenging Job to “instruct” him from Job’s great wisdom and understanding, is “where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (v. 4). This whole line of questioning is semi-sarcastic, following the sarcastic line taken by both Job and Job’s friends in earlier chapters. We all know that Job does not have answers to any of these questions. Verse 21 reiterates this sarcastic line by “you know, for you were born” when God was creating the universe. It should be obvious that Job was not born before God created the universe, and that Job is ignorant of all the things that God asks him.
Why does God ask Job all of these questions? In what way does this address Job’s criticism that God allows the wicked to prosper? More importantly, how does this explain Job’s own suffering? This is a topic I discussed at length in my commentary on chapter 28, so I would encourage my readers to review that chapter if they want to see my longer explanation. For now, I’ll just say that God is demonstrating his wisdom and understanding of natural phenomena to prove, by extension, that he is also wise and understanding of justice and human affairs, and that Job can and should respectfully trust God’s wisdom and justice in his own life. That is the meaning of God’s answer, combined with a lyrical description of the wonders of nature and God’s original creation of it.
God’s answer in particular, and the book of Job in general, has always been part philosophy and part poetry. The poetic aspect is what makes it such a long book considering the relatively few philosophical points that it makes. I don’t want to say the theology of Job is simple, since the question of suffering (or as C.S. Lewis put it, “the Problem of Pain”) has been such a persistent question across thousands of years. On the other hand, I do think the theology of Job is relatively easy to describe and categorize, so maybe it really is simple.
In any case, God questions Job about many aspects of nature. Beginning in verses 4-11, God describes the creation of the world. God describes creation like the way that a person would build a house. He talks about laying the foundation (v. 4), taking measurements and stretching out a line (v. 5). If you were building a house you would use a line to ensure that the walls were at proper 90 degree angles with each other and that the ceiling and floor were level.
Verse 7 describes the “morning stars” and the “sons of God” singing and shouting with joy as they observe God building the physical universe. “Sons of God” is a conventional phrase that refers to angels. This is interesting because it implies that God had already created the angels before he created the physical world, and that the angels were observers to the subsequent creation of the world. It’s also really cool that the angels are so excited about what God is doing.
One could imagine the angels seeing the world for the first time: stars, the oceans, trees and fish and everything else. The world is filled with wonder for those who, like a newborn child, has never seen it before. We can only imagine how exciting it must have been for the angels to see the world for the first time, but even more than that to be the first living beings to ever see the world at all.
This passage implies many things about angels but does not otherwise offer any explanations for the dynamics of how angels exist or interact with the world. Angels must have been outside the world since they existed before the world in order to see it be created. However, they must also have some way to perceive the world such that they could “shout for joy” upon its creation. This suggests that angels are not physical beings, but that they can perceive or interact with the physical world in some way. We also see obviously human-like characteristics in angels, such as their capability and desire to sing and shout. Angels can express emotions like joy and excitement.
I don’t want to take this too far because we should understand that much of this chapter is poetic and allegorical. For instance, I don’t believe that God laid a foundation in a literal sense, or stretched out a line in a literal sense. In a similar way, we may want to interpret the description of angels singing and shouting for joy as a figurative expression. It’s hard to say for sure.
Starting in verse 12, the chapter goes through many other aspects of creation with no obvious pattern of progression. God asks about the dawn, light and darkness, the deep places of the ocean and the darkness of the abyss, the storehouses of snow and hail, “bringing rain on a land without people”, the organization and management of the various stellar constellations.
What is the common theme here? This is a diverse list that jumps from one topic to another almost with every verse. To an extent, I think it focuses on aspects of natural creation. This is in keeping with verses 4-11, which discussed the marvel of the creation of the universe itself. Now God is going through different aspects of the created universe, challenging Job to express his own knowledge or mastery of the universe.
The clearest way to tie this chapter together is that God is asking Job about the obscure, untraveled and unknown places of creation. The focus is on “do you know about” this thing or that thing, and these questions find meaning because God is asking Job about aspects of creation that no human being would ever see. This doesn’t hold with everything that God says, but I think it works for the majority of this passage. In verse 16 God asks about “the springs of the sea” and “the recesses of the deep”. I.e. the bottommost pits of the ocean, where water comes from. Obviously this is not a place that any human being has ever visited. Same thing as the “dwelling of light”, the “storehouses of snow” and so on. These are places where weather comes from.
In verses 26-27, God asks about the rains that fall on desolate lands, where nobody lives. To me what this means is that God cares for the desolate lands and provides for the wildlife that dwells there, even though no human being would ever see it. To me, that is one of the truly marvelous things about God; to make a totally random example, there are colonies of ants living out in the Amazon rainforest in South America, that no living human will ever see. And yet even those ants are fed by God, are seen and understood by God, and God knows where each and every ant will be born, live and die. God feeds them and gives them life, and when they die their spirits return to God. These things are insignificant and unknown to us, and yet God knows everything, cares about everything and sustains everything.
In verses 31-33, God asks about the constellations in the sky. This is largely equivalent to “the recesses of the deep”, except in the opposite direction. Instead of being the hidden and untraveled places in the deep seas, God now asks about the hidden and untraveled places in the heavens.
Other passages in this chapter don’t really fit the theme I am laying out, and for those passages I don’t have any additional insight or commentary to offer. This chapter mostly speaks for itself, and to the extent that it doesn’t, I believe it fits within the framework I have offered in my commentary.
Finally, in verses 39-41 God starts asking Job about the animals, how they hunt and what they eat. By this, God is claiming that he satisfies with food every living thing. To an extent, this is a continuation of the theme from verses 26-27. In that passage God was providing for living plants and animals in the wilderness by sending them rain. Here in verses 39-41 it becomes more direct with God now providing food and nourishment to specific animals and birds. Even the birds are “crying out to God” (v. 41) when they beg for food. While their parents may be the immediate source of nutrition, ultimately they turn to God for their needs.
I mentioned in the previous chapter that Elihu’s use of a thunderstorm to symbolically represent the presence and nature of God blurs the distinction between God and nature. In this chapter, it seems to me like God is also blurring the distinction between himself and nature. When the birds cry out for food, they cry out to God, who provides for them through the natural world. God knows everything about the natural world and it only moves when and how he desires.
I can imagine several different ways people look at this association between God and nature. Some people may view it as a naturalistic origin to spiritual belief (i.e. that belief in God emerged naturally out of an attempt to explain or control nature - see my commentary on Job 28 for more detail). My perspective is that it is a natural consequence of God’s creative role in making the universe. Natural creation is a reflection of God’s nature because God is the one who made it. Furthermore, all of the “natural laws” were created by God and are empowered and enforced by his spirit. God’s spirit and will underlies the entire natural universe. As a metaphor, we can imagine the natural universe being like a glove that God wears when he interacts with living beings (whether animal or human). God is the being “behind” the universe, but we only perceive the natural systems like weather and gravity and stuff like that.
From that perspective, it follows that there may not be a clear distinction between God and nature judging our interactions with God. This is all highly simplified of course, and I’m ignoring some of God’s other roles like e.g. the enforcer of divine justice, which does not easily fit into the narrative of creation and God’s creative role. Some may criticize me for oversimplifying, to which my only reply is that I would encourage my readers to continue reading and studying this book and to pursue an even deeper understanding of the nature of God.
In the next chapter, God continues discussing wild animals as a way to show his superior wisdom and power over the created universe.
In verse 1, God speaks out of the storm, blurs the line between metaphor and reality. Elihu had used the thunderstorm as a rhetorical device to describe God’s nature. We don’t have to believe that God is literally in the storm to derive meaning from Elihu’s speech. Yet, at least in this particular instance, we discover that God is literally in the storm, and when the storm arrives God begins his response to Job.
This is the final speech in the book. Job’s three friends have already been silenced (Job 32:1). Job himself “concluded his remarks” (Job 31:40). Elihu himself has finished speaking, so only God is left with anything to say. And what is there for God to say? As I mentioned in a previous commentary, God’s discourse in substantially similar to what Elihu was saying in chapter 37. In that chapter, Elihu was repeatedly questioning whether Job has the knowledge or power of God, specifically related to natural phenomena associated with a thunderstorm.
In this chapter, God does the same thing, except broadening his questions to cover all of created history from the beginning of the universe. God’s very first question, after challenging Job to “instruct” him from Job’s great wisdom and understanding, is “where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (v. 4). This whole line of questioning is semi-sarcastic, following the sarcastic line taken by both Job and Job’s friends in earlier chapters. We all know that Job does not have answers to any of these questions. Verse 21 reiterates this sarcastic line by “you know, for you were born” when God was creating the universe. It should be obvious that Job was not born before God created the universe, and that Job is ignorant of all the things that God asks him.
Why does God ask Job all of these questions? In what way does this address Job’s criticism that God allows the wicked to prosper? More importantly, how does this explain Job’s own suffering? This is a topic I discussed at length in my commentary on chapter 28, so I would encourage my readers to review that chapter if they want to see my longer explanation. For now, I’ll just say that God is demonstrating his wisdom and understanding of natural phenomena to prove, by extension, that he is also wise and understanding of justice and human affairs, and that Job can and should respectfully trust God’s wisdom and justice in his own life. That is the meaning of God’s answer, combined with a lyrical description of the wonders of nature and God’s original creation of it.
God’s answer in particular, and the book of Job in general, has always been part philosophy and part poetry. The poetic aspect is what makes it such a long book considering the relatively few philosophical points that it makes. I don’t want to say the theology of Job is simple, since the question of suffering (or as C.S. Lewis put it, “the Problem of Pain”) has been such a persistent question across thousands of years. On the other hand, I do think the theology of Job is relatively easy to describe and categorize, so maybe it really is simple.
In any case, God questions Job about many aspects of nature. Beginning in verses 4-11, God describes the creation of the world. God describes creation like the way that a person would build a house. He talks about laying the foundation (v. 4), taking measurements and stretching out a line (v. 5). If you were building a house you would use a line to ensure that the walls were at proper 90 degree angles with each other and that the ceiling and floor were level.
Verse 7 describes the “morning stars” and the “sons of God” singing and shouting with joy as they observe God building the physical universe. “Sons of God” is a conventional phrase that refers to angels. This is interesting because it implies that God had already created the angels before he created the physical world, and that the angels were observers to the subsequent creation of the world. It’s also really cool that the angels are so excited about what God is doing.
One could imagine the angels seeing the world for the first time: stars, the oceans, trees and fish and everything else. The world is filled with wonder for those who, like a newborn child, has never seen it before. We can only imagine how exciting it must have been for the angels to see the world for the first time, but even more than that to be the first living beings to ever see the world at all.
This passage implies many things about angels but does not otherwise offer any explanations for the dynamics of how angels exist or interact with the world. Angels must have been outside the world since they existed before the world in order to see it be created. However, they must also have some way to perceive the world such that they could “shout for joy” upon its creation. This suggests that angels are not physical beings, but that they can perceive or interact with the physical world in some way. We also see obviously human-like characteristics in angels, such as their capability and desire to sing and shout. Angels can express emotions like joy and excitement.
I don’t want to take this too far because we should understand that much of this chapter is poetic and allegorical. For instance, I don’t believe that God laid a foundation in a literal sense, or stretched out a line in a literal sense. In a similar way, we may want to interpret the description of angels singing and shouting for joy as a figurative expression. It’s hard to say for sure.
Starting in verse 12, the chapter goes through many other aspects of creation with no obvious pattern of progression. God asks about the dawn, light and darkness, the deep places of the ocean and the darkness of the abyss, the storehouses of snow and hail, “bringing rain on a land without people”, the organization and management of the various stellar constellations.
What is the common theme here? This is a diverse list that jumps from one topic to another almost with every verse. To an extent, I think it focuses on aspects of natural creation. This is in keeping with verses 4-11, which discussed the marvel of the creation of the universe itself. Now God is going through different aspects of the created universe, challenging Job to express his own knowledge or mastery of the universe.
The clearest way to tie this chapter together is that God is asking Job about the obscure, untraveled and unknown places of creation. The focus is on “do you know about” this thing or that thing, and these questions find meaning because God is asking Job about aspects of creation that no human being would ever see. This doesn’t hold with everything that God says, but I think it works for the majority of this passage. In verse 16 God asks about “the springs of the sea” and “the recesses of the deep”. I.e. the bottommost pits of the ocean, where water comes from. Obviously this is not a place that any human being has ever visited. Same thing as the “dwelling of light”, the “storehouses of snow” and so on. These are places where weather comes from.
In verses 26-27, God asks about the rains that fall on desolate lands, where nobody lives. To me what this means is that God cares for the desolate lands and provides for the wildlife that dwells there, even though no human being would ever see it. To me, that is one of the truly marvelous things about God; to make a totally random example, there are colonies of ants living out in the Amazon rainforest in South America, that no living human will ever see. And yet even those ants are fed by God, are seen and understood by God, and God knows where each and every ant will be born, live and die. God feeds them and gives them life, and when they die their spirits return to God. These things are insignificant and unknown to us, and yet God knows everything, cares about everything and sustains everything.
In verses 31-33, God asks about the constellations in the sky. This is largely equivalent to “the recesses of the deep”, except in the opposite direction. Instead of being the hidden and untraveled places in the deep seas, God now asks about the hidden and untraveled places in the heavens.
Other passages in this chapter don’t really fit the theme I am laying out, and for those passages I don’t have any additional insight or commentary to offer. This chapter mostly speaks for itself, and to the extent that it doesn’t, I believe it fits within the framework I have offered in my commentary.
Finally, in verses 39-41 God starts asking Job about the animals, how they hunt and what they eat. By this, God is claiming that he satisfies with food every living thing. To an extent, this is a continuation of the theme from verses 26-27. In that passage God was providing for living plants and animals in the wilderness by sending them rain. Here in verses 39-41 it becomes more direct with God now providing food and nourishment to specific animals and birds. Even the birds are “crying out to God” (v. 41) when they beg for food. While their parents may be the immediate source of nutrition, ultimately they turn to God for their needs.
I mentioned in the previous chapter that Elihu’s use of a thunderstorm to symbolically represent the presence and nature of God blurs the distinction between God and nature. In this chapter, it seems to me like God is also blurring the distinction between himself and nature. When the birds cry out for food, they cry out to God, who provides for them through the natural world. God knows everything about the natural world and it only moves when and how he desires.
I can imagine several different ways people look at this association between God and nature. Some people may view it as a naturalistic origin to spiritual belief (i.e. that belief in God emerged naturally out of an attempt to explain or control nature - see my commentary on Job 28 for more detail). My perspective is that it is a natural consequence of God’s creative role in making the universe. Natural creation is a reflection of God’s nature because God is the one who made it. Furthermore, all of the “natural laws” were created by God and are empowered and enforced by his spirit. God’s spirit and will underlies the entire natural universe. As a metaphor, we can imagine the natural universe being like a glove that God wears when he interacts with living beings (whether animal or human). God is the being “behind” the universe, but we only perceive the natural systems like weather and gravity and stuff like that.
From that perspective, it follows that there may not be a clear distinction between God and nature judging our interactions with God. This is all highly simplified of course, and I’m ignoring some of God’s other roles like e.g. the enforcer of divine justice, which does not easily fit into the narrative of creation and God’s creative role. Some may criticize me for oversimplifying, to which my only reply is that I would encourage my readers to continue reading and studying this book and to pursue an even deeper understanding of the nature of God.
In the next chapter, God continues discussing wild animals as a way to show his superior wisdom and power over the created universe.
Monday, September 10, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 37
In this chapter, Elihu extols the glory of God in a thunderstorm and challenges Job to match God in glory and power.
In the previous chapter, Elihu described an approaching thunderstorm as a metaphor for God’s glory and power (Job 36:27-33). Elihu begins this chapter the same description with “the thunder of His voice” (v. 2) and so on. Verses 3 and 4 even point out the time delay between a flash of lightning and the sound of thunder.
Elihu continues this lyrical description of a thunderstorm until verse 12. I really like verse 1, because it opens the chapter with an emotional description. And it’s an emotion that I can relate to. I remember in my childhood watching thunderstorms from my bedroom. At night, with all the lights off, watching lightning flash and hear thunder boom from your childhood bedroom is an impressive experience. Elihu describes it the same way, with his “heart leaping” at the sight and sound of the storm, and to me it heightens the sense that Job and his friends are looking at a real storm moving in even while Elihu concludes his remarks. I also really like verse 8, with all of the animals fleeing to shelter in their “dens” when the storm arrives. This is not theologically significant but it is a colorful detail.
Verse 13 is an interesting aside. Elihu lays out several possible motivations for why God could be guiding the storm as it goes along. He gives three possible explanations: “for correction, the earth, or for lovingkindness”. We can imagine what this might mean. “For correction” suggests that the storm is sent as punishment, with lightning and rain lashing wicked people or… I don’t know, something like that. For “the earth” suggests that the storm is sent to different places so that the life-giving water can promote new growth, keeping the earth healthy. The final explanation, “for lovingkindness”, suggests a similar motive. God could be sending the storm to places in the earth to rain down water, helping crops and filling cisterns.
In modern times, “going through a storm” is a common metaphor to suggest hardship or suffering, but to the ancient Hebrews who lived so close to the earth and so dependent upon it, storms were more often than not a boon and indeed necessary to their survival. Without water, nothing would survive in the harsh Middle Eastern deserts of Israel. From this point of view, storms are usually a blessing. What we can see in this chapter is that while storms are a blessing and bring life to the world, they are also impressive, powerful and intimidating. It certainly seems like an appropriate analogy. We depend on God for our lives, but he is powerful, mysterious and fearsome. We live in fear and respect of God, while ultimately acknowledging that our lives depend on him.
Beginning in verse 14, Elihu challenges Job to match the splendor and wisdom of God. Once again Elihu is describing God’s glory and power through natural phenomena, especially the clouds, lightning and winds of a thunderstorm. It’s a continuation of the same theme as before, but presented as a series of questions or challenges for Job to compare himself to God and see if he can equal God. The implication is obvious: he cannot.
This also presages God’s response in the next chapter, where God will ask Job a long series of questions. In fact I would say this chapter is very similar to God’s response in general, both in tone and general content.
In conclusion, Elihu finally asserts that God maintains justice and “abundant righteousness” (v. 23).
In the next chapter, God speaks for the first time since chapter 2.
In the previous chapter, Elihu described an approaching thunderstorm as a metaphor for God’s glory and power (Job 36:27-33). Elihu begins this chapter the same description with “the thunder of His voice” (v. 2) and so on. Verses 3 and 4 even point out the time delay between a flash of lightning and the sound of thunder.
Elihu continues this lyrical description of a thunderstorm until verse 12. I really like verse 1, because it opens the chapter with an emotional description. And it’s an emotion that I can relate to. I remember in my childhood watching thunderstorms from my bedroom. At night, with all the lights off, watching lightning flash and hear thunder boom from your childhood bedroom is an impressive experience. Elihu describes it the same way, with his “heart leaping” at the sight and sound of the storm, and to me it heightens the sense that Job and his friends are looking at a real storm moving in even while Elihu concludes his remarks. I also really like verse 8, with all of the animals fleeing to shelter in their “dens” when the storm arrives. This is not theologically significant but it is a colorful detail.
Verse 13 is an interesting aside. Elihu lays out several possible motivations for why God could be guiding the storm as it goes along. He gives three possible explanations: “for correction, the earth, or for lovingkindness”. We can imagine what this might mean. “For correction” suggests that the storm is sent as punishment, with lightning and rain lashing wicked people or… I don’t know, something like that. For “the earth” suggests that the storm is sent to different places so that the life-giving water can promote new growth, keeping the earth healthy. The final explanation, “for lovingkindness”, suggests a similar motive. God could be sending the storm to places in the earth to rain down water, helping crops and filling cisterns.
In modern times, “going through a storm” is a common metaphor to suggest hardship or suffering, but to the ancient Hebrews who lived so close to the earth and so dependent upon it, storms were more often than not a boon and indeed necessary to their survival. Without water, nothing would survive in the harsh Middle Eastern deserts of Israel. From this point of view, storms are usually a blessing. What we can see in this chapter is that while storms are a blessing and bring life to the world, they are also impressive, powerful and intimidating. It certainly seems like an appropriate analogy. We depend on God for our lives, but he is powerful, mysterious and fearsome. We live in fear and respect of God, while ultimately acknowledging that our lives depend on him.
Beginning in verse 14, Elihu challenges Job to match the splendor and wisdom of God. Once again Elihu is describing God’s glory and power through natural phenomena, especially the clouds, lightning and winds of a thunderstorm. It’s a continuation of the same theme as before, but presented as a series of questions or challenges for Job to compare himself to God and see if he can equal God. The implication is obvious: he cannot.
This also presages God’s response in the next chapter, where God will ask Job a long series of questions. In fact I would say this chapter is very similar to God’s response in general, both in tone and general content.
In conclusion, Elihu finally asserts that God maintains justice and “abundant righteousness” (v. 23).
In the next chapter, God speaks for the first time since chapter 2.
Sunday, September 9, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 36
In this chapter, Elihu reaffirms God’s righteousness and God’s overwhelming power.
This is an interesting follow-up to chapter 35. In chapter 35, Elihu was questioning Job’s motivation, discussing the meaning of righteousness and arguing that Job’s righteousness is not something that can be exchanged for material blessing. In this chapter, Elihu is apparently reiterating the classical vision of God as the enforcer of divine justice, that blessing follows righteousness and punishment follows wickedness. I don’t want to say it’s a contradiction, but on the other hand it does kinda feel like one.
In the previous chapter, Elihu said, “when you sin, who are you sinning against? You sin against other people, not God. If you are righteous, how does God benefit? Isn’t your righteousness directed at other people as well, and not God?” (Job 35:6-8). It’s a relatively small step from “God is not affected by your righteousness” to “God is unconcerned about your righteousness”. From there, we naturally progress to “God does not reward righteousness or punish its absence.” This is a natural implication of Elihu’s argument, which is why I think that it feels like a contradiction to this chapter. However, I don’t think that was really the argument Elihu was trying to make. Instead, I think Elihu’s point in the previous chapter was more about reframing our motivation for why we pursue righteousness.
Job was asking, “what is the advantage of being righteous if God does not bless the righteous?” Elihu’s response was that we should not look to righteousness as a means of advancement or for material prosperity, and the reason why is that our righteousness or wickedness affects the lives of other people and we ought to be concerned about other people for their own sake, not simply because of self-interested desire to accrue “God’s blessing” as a reward for good behavior. The modern cliche to express a similar concept is that “virtue is its own reward”. While I don’t think that’s what Elihu is trying to say, it certainly possesses a similar tone.
After all this, we can see that Elihu’s position is not a contradiction. He wasn’t trying to deny that God blesses the righteous, and indeed this chapter confirms the point without hesitation. Instead, Elihu was trying to reframe the question so that Job stopped looking at himself, stopped looking for God’s blessing as his motivation, and to show that we should view righteousness and wickedness through the lens of how it affects others.
In this chapter, Elihu’s first principle is that God blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked. In verses 8-9, he says that when the righteous “are caught in the cords of affliction” that God would make clear to them “their transgressions”. From verses 10-21 Elihu reinforces this theme, specifically warning Job against “turning to evil” (v. 21) or being “enticed to scoffing” (v. 18), amongst other things. Elihu warns Job that he should not turn to wrath in his affliction, but should instead listen for God’s rebuke and gain understanding about what he has done wrong, repent and then God in turn will restore and bless him.
In a nutshell, Elihu is falling back on the same trope we have seen over and over, that Job must have some kind of hidden sin in his life, that he should repent of it and when he does, that God would turn his life around, withdraw the chastening “cords of affliction” and restore Job to his former glory. There are some minor differences. For instance, Elihu’s emphasis on God’s “instruction” (v. 9-10), and corresponding focus on “hearing” as our response (v. 11-12). It’s more interactive and more dynamic than the righteousness/wickedness framework of the three friends, but only in subtle and nuanced ways. The central principle is indistinguishable from what the three friends offered in their wisdom, and we can reasonably lump them together with little loss of generality.
In verses 22-26, Elihu has a final declaration of God’s glory, concluding with a remarkable declaration: “Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know him.” This verse is easy to understand, but the truth it conveys is deep and profound. I once heard a sermon online that was based on verse 26 and I wish I could find it again because it really gave me a deep sensitivity to this verse that I can’t otherwise explain. I’m struggling to know what to write, because I want to share that passion with others but I don’t know how to put it into words. I’ll just leave it at that.
Beginning in verse 27, and going to the end of the chapter, is the beginning of the end. This is Elihu’s final remarks. The entire next chapter follows the same theme, and it is describing God’s glory using the metaphor of a thunderstorm. In verses 27-28 he talks about the mystery of rain, in verse 29 it is the mystery of clouds and thunder, in verse 32-33 it is lightning “declaring” God’s presence. This subject carries on into the next chapter with greater fervor as Elihu builds towards his conclusion.
Elihu’s speech is now like a growing crescendo. He is going to add layer upon layer in the imminence and power of the coming storm, which announces God’s soon arrival. We can imagine Job and his friends standing in a field somewhere, observing dark clouds in the distance, lightning flashing and clouds of rain visible, and watching the storm approach. Elihu gets more awed and excited as the storm draws near, and when the storm arrives is when God speaks.
In the next chapter, Elihu continues foreshadowing God’s arrival using that same storm as a metaphor for God’s power and glory.
This is an interesting follow-up to chapter 35. In chapter 35, Elihu was questioning Job’s motivation, discussing the meaning of righteousness and arguing that Job’s righteousness is not something that can be exchanged for material blessing. In this chapter, Elihu is apparently reiterating the classical vision of God as the enforcer of divine justice, that blessing follows righteousness and punishment follows wickedness. I don’t want to say it’s a contradiction, but on the other hand it does kinda feel like one.
In the previous chapter, Elihu said, “when you sin, who are you sinning against? You sin against other people, not God. If you are righteous, how does God benefit? Isn’t your righteousness directed at other people as well, and not God?” (Job 35:6-8). It’s a relatively small step from “God is not affected by your righteousness” to “God is unconcerned about your righteousness”. From there, we naturally progress to “God does not reward righteousness or punish its absence.” This is a natural implication of Elihu’s argument, which is why I think that it feels like a contradiction to this chapter. However, I don’t think that was really the argument Elihu was trying to make. Instead, I think Elihu’s point in the previous chapter was more about reframing our motivation for why we pursue righteousness.
Job was asking, “what is the advantage of being righteous if God does not bless the righteous?” Elihu’s response was that we should not look to righteousness as a means of advancement or for material prosperity, and the reason why is that our righteousness or wickedness affects the lives of other people and we ought to be concerned about other people for their own sake, not simply because of self-interested desire to accrue “God’s blessing” as a reward for good behavior. The modern cliche to express a similar concept is that “virtue is its own reward”. While I don’t think that’s what Elihu is trying to say, it certainly possesses a similar tone.
After all this, we can see that Elihu’s position is not a contradiction. He wasn’t trying to deny that God blesses the righteous, and indeed this chapter confirms the point without hesitation. Instead, Elihu was trying to reframe the question so that Job stopped looking at himself, stopped looking for God’s blessing as his motivation, and to show that we should view righteousness and wickedness through the lens of how it affects others.
In this chapter, Elihu’s first principle is that God blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked. In verses 8-9, he says that when the righteous “are caught in the cords of affliction” that God would make clear to them “their transgressions”. From verses 10-21 Elihu reinforces this theme, specifically warning Job against “turning to evil” (v. 21) or being “enticed to scoffing” (v. 18), amongst other things. Elihu warns Job that he should not turn to wrath in his affliction, but should instead listen for God’s rebuke and gain understanding about what he has done wrong, repent and then God in turn will restore and bless him.
In a nutshell, Elihu is falling back on the same trope we have seen over and over, that Job must have some kind of hidden sin in his life, that he should repent of it and when he does, that God would turn his life around, withdraw the chastening “cords of affliction” and restore Job to his former glory. There are some minor differences. For instance, Elihu’s emphasis on God’s “instruction” (v. 9-10), and corresponding focus on “hearing” as our response (v. 11-12). It’s more interactive and more dynamic than the righteousness/wickedness framework of the three friends, but only in subtle and nuanced ways. The central principle is indistinguishable from what the three friends offered in their wisdom, and we can reasonably lump them together with little loss of generality.
In verses 22-26, Elihu has a final declaration of God’s glory, concluding with a remarkable declaration: “Behold, God is exalted, and we do not know him.” This verse is easy to understand, but the truth it conveys is deep and profound. I once heard a sermon online that was based on verse 26 and I wish I could find it again because it really gave me a deep sensitivity to this verse that I can’t otherwise explain. I’m struggling to know what to write, because I want to share that passion with others but I don’t know how to put it into words. I’ll just leave it at that.
Beginning in verse 27, and going to the end of the chapter, is the beginning of the end. This is Elihu’s final remarks. The entire next chapter follows the same theme, and it is describing God’s glory using the metaphor of a thunderstorm. In verses 27-28 he talks about the mystery of rain, in verse 29 it is the mystery of clouds and thunder, in verse 32-33 it is lightning “declaring” God’s presence. This subject carries on into the next chapter with greater fervor as Elihu builds towards his conclusion.
Elihu’s speech is now like a growing crescendo. He is going to add layer upon layer in the imminence and power of the coming storm, which announces God’s soon arrival. We can imagine Job and his friends standing in a field somewhere, observing dark clouds in the distance, lightning flashing and clouds of rain visible, and watching the storm approach. Elihu gets more awed and excited as the storm draws near, and when the storm arrives is when God speaks.
In the next chapter, Elihu continues foreshadowing God’s arrival using that same storm as a metaphor for God’s power and glory.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 35
In this chapter, Elihu responds to Job’s claim that God is neither blessing the righteous nor punishing the wicked.
This chapter is all about motivation. Beginning in verse 3, Elihu questions Job’s motivation. Job never says it directly, but in chapter 24 Job was pretty clear that he saw the wicked go unpunished, and questioned where was the justice of God. Elihu believes that Job was implying it was better to sin, and become wealthy through extortion, than to be righteous. That is, Job was asking what was the “profit” of being righteous given that he was suffering as a righteous person and the wicked were going unpunished.
Interestingly, this moment recalls us to the very beginning of Job with the argument between God and Satan that started it all. If my readers recall, Satan accused Job of not “fearing God for nothing” (Job 1:9). In other words, that Job was “fearing” god and living righteously with an ulterior motive, that he was serving only for the blessing and prosperity that God bestowed upon the righteous, and not because Job had any innate desire to do what was good. Here in this chapter, Elihu is now the one questioning Job’s motivation. Now that Job is living without God’s blessing, Elihu claims that Job is losing his motivation to remain righteous. If there is no “advantage” to being righteous, then why should we remain righteous?
Elihu answers this question by discussing righteousness and wickedness in relation to God. Neither righteousness nor wickedness affects God. God is not benefited when we do good, and he is not hurt when we do evil (v. 6-7). Instead, the good and evil that we do is to each other (v. 8). This is pretty clearly putting things into the social justice framework, because it envisions both good and evil as the description of our conduct towards one another; evil is exploiting other men, and good is blessing them.
This all cuts to a second question of motivation: what is God’s motivation? In chapters 33-34, Elihu framed God as the judge of all men, blessing the righteous and punishing the wicked. However, if good and evil do not affect God, then why would God desire to enforce this heavenly justice system? Elihu’s argument is that God is somehow disinterested in our behavior, affected neither positively or negatively. Why then would he reward and punish for our behavior if he is not concerned by it? These are not questions that Elihu concretely addresses.
Instead, starting in verse 9 Elihu seems to change tracks, once again addressing Job and his claim of injustice at the hands of God. It’s similar to what he said in the previous chapter, that Job was rebelling against God by complaining of unfairness and refusing to submit to God’s punishment. Elihu says that Job “must wait for him”, waiting for God’s vindication if he is indeed innocent like he claims. Since Job is not waiting for God’s true judgment and restoration, Job is guilty of “multiplying words without knowledge”.
What can we learn from this chapter? Like I mentioned earlier, this chapter is centered around the question of motivation, both human motivation and God’s motivation. The central question is why we should live righteously if God does not reward us for doing so.
The reward-punish paradigm is a moral framework based on self-interest. If we do good, we are rewarded, if we do evil, we are punished, so “if you know what’s good for you”, then you will do good because any deeply self-interested actor will seek rewards over punishment when given the choice. Of course, it is exactly this self-interested motivation that Satan was attacking in chapter 1, claiming that Job’s righteousness was only in pursuit of God’s blessing and that if God breaks the connection between the two (by withholding his blessing), then Job would cease to live righteously.
Job has refused to “curse God and die” (Job 2:9), so I think it’s fair to say that Job has not yet actually sinned, but he has definitely questioned whether there is any point to being righteous if the wicked prosper, and Elihu picks up on that in his response.
When responding to Job, the three friends insist that God does, in fact, bless the righteous and curse the wicked, the reward-punish paradigm is in effect, and Job has simply fallen to the wrong side of the line. Elihu, on the other hand, argues that Job is talking like a wicked person for even bringing it up.
From a philosophical point of view, this is a really deep topic and I don’t think I’ll be able to really go into all the details. Self-interest is a motivation that pretty much everyone understands. What makes it challenging is that most people don’t accept self-interested righteousness as being “the real thing”, either here in the bible or in normal life. If I own a restaurant and I permit poor people to come and buy food at standard prices, it might not have been evil but it certainly wouldn’t be considered a righteous or noble thing. On the other hand, nearly everyone would agree that giving poor people food at a discounted rate or for free is an honorable thing. It’s the same action, but only the second one is charity; the first one is just running a business. Running a business is not a bad thing or evil, but it’s hardly what most people would call “righteous”. In Job, both God and Satan agree that self-interested righteousness is not true righteousness at all, so Job is in agreement with conventional morality as it’s commonly employed in society.
In Job, self-interested righteousness breaks down; what motivation can fill its place? More generally, if we imagined a world with neither heaven nor hell (or perhaps, an afterlife that was completely identical to everyone with no regard for their conduct on earth), with no reward, no punishment and no judgment at all, then why should people even bother following righteousness if we can do all kinds of evil things and God will never call us to account? Even if we don’t care for doing evil, why bother making sacrifices or charity or helping others, if the good we do is not returned to us in some way by God?
This is where Elihu’s response comes in. Elihu basically says that nothing we do, whether good or evil, is done to God. Rather, the good and evil that we do is done to other people (v. 6-8), and that is what he presents as our motivation. Elihu is basically saying that we should do good and avoid evil not because of our own self-interest, but for advancing the interests of others. We could maybe call this other-interest, to place it in opposition to self-interest. Both self-interest and other-interest are what we may call axiomatic principles. You cannot “prove” that one or the other is the right way to live, any more than you could prove that one plus one equals two. It is a foundational principle that can be used to prove other things, but cannot be proven itself.
For instance, if we operate out of self-interest, then reward-punish moral frameworks give us good reason to do good and receive the promised reward. However, the existence of a reward-punish moral framework does not prove that we should seek rewards and avoid punishment. That is a question of personal values, whether I should seek my own well-being, that cannot be answered without making a fundamental assumption that my own well-being is something worth advancing. If I decide that I don’t care about my own well-being, then there is no threat or promise anyone could possibly bring that could possibly change my behavior so long as those threats or promises don’t affect anything that I do care about.
If I am living based on other-interest, and not self-interest, then you could threaten my family or friends but not me. You could promise to reward my family or friends, and I would listen, but I would be indifferent to a similar promise made to me. This is exactly the impulse that Elihu is appealing to, telling Job that he ought to pursue righteousness because doing good to other people is a moral value in itself that he should desire even if it does not earn him any rewards at all. It is other-interest, not self-interest, that should guide Job’s behavior.
In the next chapter, Elihu asserts that God indeed blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked.
This chapter is all about motivation. Beginning in verse 3, Elihu questions Job’s motivation. Job never says it directly, but in chapter 24 Job was pretty clear that he saw the wicked go unpunished, and questioned where was the justice of God. Elihu believes that Job was implying it was better to sin, and become wealthy through extortion, than to be righteous. That is, Job was asking what was the “profit” of being righteous given that he was suffering as a righteous person and the wicked were going unpunished.
Interestingly, this moment recalls us to the very beginning of Job with the argument between God and Satan that started it all. If my readers recall, Satan accused Job of not “fearing God for nothing” (Job 1:9). In other words, that Job was “fearing” god and living righteously with an ulterior motive, that he was serving only for the blessing and prosperity that God bestowed upon the righteous, and not because Job had any innate desire to do what was good. Here in this chapter, Elihu is now the one questioning Job’s motivation. Now that Job is living without God’s blessing, Elihu claims that Job is losing his motivation to remain righteous. If there is no “advantage” to being righteous, then why should we remain righteous?
Elihu answers this question by discussing righteousness and wickedness in relation to God. Neither righteousness nor wickedness affects God. God is not benefited when we do good, and he is not hurt when we do evil (v. 6-7). Instead, the good and evil that we do is to each other (v. 8). This is pretty clearly putting things into the social justice framework, because it envisions both good and evil as the description of our conduct towards one another; evil is exploiting other men, and good is blessing them.
This all cuts to a second question of motivation: what is God’s motivation? In chapters 33-34, Elihu framed God as the judge of all men, blessing the righteous and punishing the wicked. However, if good and evil do not affect God, then why would God desire to enforce this heavenly justice system? Elihu’s argument is that God is somehow disinterested in our behavior, affected neither positively or negatively. Why then would he reward and punish for our behavior if he is not concerned by it? These are not questions that Elihu concretely addresses.
Instead, starting in verse 9 Elihu seems to change tracks, once again addressing Job and his claim of injustice at the hands of God. It’s similar to what he said in the previous chapter, that Job was rebelling against God by complaining of unfairness and refusing to submit to God’s punishment. Elihu says that Job “must wait for him”, waiting for God’s vindication if he is indeed innocent like he claims. Since Job is not waiting for God’s true judgment and restoration, Job is guilty of “multiplying words without knowledge”.
What can we learn from this chapter? Like I mentioned earlier, this chapter is centered around the question of motivation, both human motivation and God’s motivation. The central question is why we should live righteously if God does not reward us for doing so.
The reward-punish paradigm is a moral framework based on self-interest. If we do good, we are rewarded, if we do evil, we are punished, so “if you know what’s good for you”, then you will do good because any deeply self-interested actor will seek rewards over punishment when given the choice. Of course, it is exactly this self-interested motivation that Satan was attacking in chapter 1, claiming that Job’s righteousness was only in pursuit of God’s blessing and that if God breaks the connection between the two (by withholding his blessing), then Job would cease to live righteously.
Job has refused to “curse God and die” (Job 2:9), so I think it’s fair to say that Job has not yet actually sinned, but he has definitely questioned whether there is any point to being righteous if the wicked prosper, and Elihu picks up on that in his response.
When responding to Job, the three friends insist that God does, in fact, bless the righteous and curse the wicked, the reward-punish paradigm is in effect, and Job has simply fallen to the wrong side of the line. Elihu, on the other hand, argues that Job is talking like a wicked person for even bringing it up.
From a philosophical point of view, this is a really deep topic and I don’t think I’ll be able to really go into all the details. Self-interest is a motivation that pretty much everyone understands. What makes it challenging is that most people don’t accept self-interested righteousness as being “the real thing”, either here in the bible or in normal life. If I own a restaurant and I permit poor people to come and buy food at standard prices, it might not have been evil but it certainly wouldn’t be considered a righteous or noble thing. On the other hand, nearly everyone would agree that giving poor people food at a discounted rate or for free is an honorable thing. It’s the same action, but only the second one is charity; the first one is just running a business. Running a business is not a bad thing or evil, but it’s hardly what most people would call “righteous”. In Job, both God and Satan agree that self-interested righteousness is not true righteousness at all, so Job is in agreement with conventional morality as it’s commonly employed in society.
In Job, self-interested righteousness breaks down; what motivation can fill its place? More generally, if we imagined a world with neither heaven nor hell (or perhaps, an afterlife that was completely identical to everyone with no regard for their conduct on earth), with no reward, no punishment and no judgment at all, then why should people even bother following righteousness if we can do all kinds of evil things and God will never call us to account? Even if we don’t care for doing evil, why bother making sacrifices or charity or helping others, if the good we do is not returned to us in some way by God?
This is where Elihu’s response comes in. Elihu basically says that nothing we do, whether good or evil, is done to God. Rather, the good and evil that we do is done to other people (v. 6-8), and that is what he presents as our motivation. Elihu is basically saying that we should do good and avoid evil not because of our own self-interest, but for advancing the interests of others. We could maybe call this other-interest, to place it in opposition to self-interest. Both self-interest and other-interest are what we may call axiomatic principles. You cannot “prove” that one or the other is the right way to live, any more than you could prove that one plus one equals two. It is a foundational principle that can be used to prove other things, but cannot be proven itself.
For instance, if we operate out of self-interest, then reward-punish moral frameworks give us good reason to do good and receive the promised reward. However, the existence of a reward-punish moral framework does not prove that we should seek rewards and avoid punishment. That is a question of personal values, whether I should seek my own well-being, that cannot be answered without making a fundamental assumption that my own well-being is something worth advancing. If I decide that I don’t care about my own well-being, then there is no threat or promise anyone could possibly bring that could possibly change my behavior so long as those threats or promises don’t affect anything that I do care about.
If I am living based on other-interest, and not self-interest, then you could threaten my family or friends but not me. You could promise to reward my family or friends, and I would listen, but I would be indifferent to a similar promise made to me. This is exactly the impulse that Elihu is appealing to, telling Job that he ought to pursue righteousness because doing good to other people is a moral value in itself that he should desire even if it does not earn him any rewards at all. It is other-interest, not self-interest, that should guide Job’s behavior.
In the next chapter, Elihu asserts that God indeed blesses the righteous and punishes the wicked.
Monday, September 3, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 34
In this chapter, Elihu says that he will speak to the three friends, but actually addresses his remarks to Job, extending his criticism of Job’s complaint.
This is a peculiar chapter. In verse 2 Elihu makes it clear he is addressing the three friends, but the substance of his remarks is much more targeted to Job, continuing to rebuke Job in a similar way to the previous chapter.
Elihu opens his speech once again by quoting Job (verses 5-6, 9), paraphrasing Job’s complaint. Elihu’s summary seems fair to me; I think Job really is saying that he is innocent and God is punishing him unfairly.
Elihu’s response in verses 6-7 is that Job is a wicked man living in the company of wicked men, because Elihu believes that Job is making sinful arguments by accusing God of doing wrong. Elihu sees Job’s complaint as an accusation directed against God, so Elihu’s response is that God does not “do wickedness” (v. 10) or “pervert justice” (v. 12). God “pays a man according to his work”.
Even though Elihu opened by addressing the three friends, I once again find that Elihu’s argument substantially mimics the three friends, and that he is directing his remarks to Job and not, indeed, the friends. “Paying a man according to his work” feels very close to the doctrine of the three friends who argued that God would bless the righteous and punish the wicked. It’s strange because the narrative positions Elihu as a contrarian, coming in and bringing some fresh perspective to the dialogue between Job and the friends. If Elihu believed the same thing as the three friends, then there isn’t really any reason why he would feel a need to speak here. In chapter 32, Elihu’s motivation for speaking at all is the shortcomings he perceives in the three friends, that “there was no one who refuted Job” (Job 32:12). Here, however, it feels like Elihu is responding to Job almost exactly the same way the three friends would. I can’t really see anything here the friends would disagree with.
Starting in verse 13, Elihu speaks in defense of God. In verses 13-19, Elihu says that God is impartial and judges everyone the same way. Even if they are princes or nobles, God regards all men equally because all men are the work of his hands and all live by the breath and the spirit of God. This is a defense of God’s justice, similar to the concepts of social justice employed by Job and the three friends. They focused more on the negative side, abusing the vulnerable orphans and widows, and here Elihu does the opposite, claiming that God would not give privileged treatment to the wealthy or powerful. It’s in the opposite direction but with the same basic impulse towards an expression of fairness and justice for all people regardless of their status.
Continuing in verses 20-30, Elihu emphasizes God’s fairness because God sees everything. Even when the wicked try to hide their sins in darkness, God perceives it and will punish and destroy them. This is another way of claiming that God is just and fair. Earlier Elihu said that God judges all men equally, and here he is saying that God judges all men perfectly. There is no deception or hiding from God’s inspection, and God “does not need to consider a man further” (v. 23), because God’s judgments are always correct and true. This is why Job’s complaint rubs Elihu the wrong way, because Job is claiming that God judged him incorrectly.
Finally, in verses 31-37 Elihu rebukes Job once more, because Job is trying to speak to God on his own terms instead of accepting God’s terms. Job previously said that he wanted God to come and tell him what he did wrong, that he wanted to go with God before a judge or arbitrator to decide who was in the right. Elihu calls this “rebellion” (v. 37), because God is the great king and Job is rebelling against his judgments and authority. According to Elihu, Job should submit to God’s “chastisement” (v. 31) and repent, rather than challenge God to show what Job has done wrong. Elihu, like the three friends, is presuming that Job has sinned in some way and further presuming that Job knows what it is. From that point of view, Job’s denials look like rebellion because Job knows what he should change but isn’t submitting to God’s authority.
In conclusion, Elihu is saying that God always judges correctly, and Job is “rebelling” against God by questioning God’s fairness and impartiality. This is Elihu’s defense of the Lord.
In the next chapter, Elihu continues replying to Job.
This is a peculiar chapter. In verse 2 Elihu makes it clear he is addressing the three friends, but the substance of his remarks is much more targeted to Job, continuing to rebuke Job in a similar way to the previous chapter.
Elihu opens his speech once again by quoting Job (verses 5-6, 9), paraphrasing Job’s complaint. Elihu’s summary seems fair to me; I think Job really is saying that he is innocent and God is punishing him unfairly.
Elihu’s response in verses 6-7 is that Job is a wicked man living in the company of wicked men, because Elihu believes that Job is making sinful arguments by accusing God of doing wrong. Elihu sees Job’s complaint as an accusation directed against God, so Elihu’s response is that God does not “do wickedness” (v. 10) or “pervert justice” (v. 12). God “pays a man according to his work”.
Even though Elihu opened by addressing the three friends, I once again find that Elihu’s argument substantially mimics the three friends, and that he is directing his remarks to Job and not, indeed, the friends. “Paying a man according to his work” feels very close to the doctrine of the three friends who argued that God would bless the righteous and punish the wicked. It’s strange because the narrative positions Elihu as a contrarian, coming in and bringing some fresh perspective to the dialogue between Job and the friends. If Elihu believed the same thing as the three friends, then there isn’t really any reason why he would feel a need to speak here. In chapter 32, Elihu’s motivation for speaking at all is the shortcomings he perceives in the three friends, that “there was no one who refuted Job” (Job 32:12). Here, however, it feels like Elihu is responding to Job almost exactly the same way the three friends would. I can’t really see anything here the friends would disagree with.
Starting in verse 13, Elihu speaks in defense of God. In verses 13-19, Elihu says that God is impartial and judges everyone the same way. Even if they are princes or nobles, God regards all men equally because all men are the work of his hands and all live by the breath and the spirit of God. This is a defense of God’s justice, similar to the concepts of social justice employed by Job and the three friends. They focused more on the negative side, abusing the vulnerable orphans and widows, and here Elihu does the opposite, claiming that God would not give privileged treatment to the wealthy or powerful. It’s in the opposite direction but with the same basic impulse towards an expression of fairness and justice for all people regardless of their status.
Continuing in verses 20-30, Elihu emphasizes God’s fairness because God sees everything. Even when the wicked try to hide their sins in darkness, God perceives it and will punish and destroy them. This is another way of claiming that God is just and fair. Earlier Elihu said that God judges all men equally, and here he is saying that God judges all men perfectly. There is no deception or hiding from God’s inspection, and God “does not need to consider a man further” (v. 23), because God’s judgments are always correct and true. This is why Job’s complaint rubs Elihu the wrong way, because Job is claiming that God judged him incorrectly.
Finally, in verses 31-37 Elihu rebukes Job once more, because Job is trying to speak to God on his own terms instead of accepting God’s terms. Job previously said that he wanted God to come and tell him what he did wrong, that he wanted to go with God before a judge or arbitrator to decide who was in the right. Elihu calls this “rebellion” (v. 37), because God is the great king and Job is rebelling against his judgments and authority. According to Elihu, Job should submit to God’s “chastisement” (v. 31) and repent, rather than challenge God to show what Job has done wrong. Elihu, like the three friends, is presuming that Job has sinned in some way and further presuming that Job knows what it is. From that point of view, Job’s denials look like rebellion because Job knows what he should change but isn’t submitting to God’s authority.
In conclusion, Elihu is saying that God always judges correctly, and Job is “rebelling” against God by questioning God’s fairness and impartiality. This is Elihu’s defense of the Lord.
In the next chapter, Elihu continues replying to Job.
Saturday, September 1, 2018
Bible Commentary - Job 33
In this chapter, Elihu argues that God is speaking to Job through Job’s suffering to bring him to repentance.
Verses 1- constitute an introduction of sorts. The only part of this that I find interesting is when Elihu says “no fear of me should terrify you” (v. 7). In comparison, Job said several times that God had all this power and strength to “terrify” Job, and that Job could not speak to him on equal terms because of it. What Elihu is saying then is that Elihu does not have the strength to overpower Job, and therefore only the persuasion and virtue of his arguments stands against Job’s complaint.
The meat of Elihu’s response is verses 14-30. In this passage, Elihu presents a story of some kind to explain, in a sense, how God relates to men.
In the beginning of this story, God speaks to men in dreams at night (v. 15) to warn them and instruct them in God’s ways, to turn them away from sin. Afterwards, if instruction does not suffice, then God “chastens” men with pain and sickness. This is still when they are on their beds, but instead of lying in bed in the restfulness of sleep, they now lie in bed in tremendous pain, wasting away and drawing near to the pit of death.
Man draws near to this pit of death, but then there is a moment when “a ransom” is found and the man is saved from death. Even though he draws near to the very edge, he is not cast over into the darkness of the abyss. An angel comes and declares some kind of ransom, then beginning in verse 25 the man is restored to health and is received by God. This begins the upward arc as the man “sees [God’s] face with joy” and is “brought back” from “the pit” (v. 30).
Even though Elihu is presented as being an alternative voice from the three friends, his argument here seems to have a lot of similarities to the repentance-and-redemption narrative that that Eliphaz shared in chapter 5. Eliphaz made the same argument a second time in Job 22:21-23. I felt that “repentance leads to restoration” was implicit in all of the three friends’ arguments, though they did not always say it directly. Here it seems central to Elihu’s moral framework as well, with verse 26 expressing the thought: “Then he will pray to God, and God will accept him”. Elihu also echoes the three friends in his repudiation of Job’s self-proclaimed innocence. That Job has some kind of sin in his life is implicit to the very notion that Job should repent, because otherwise he would have no reason to repent.
The biggest difference I can perceive between Elihu and the three friends is that Elihu views suffering as part of God’s redemptive work, to bring people to repentance, rather than viewing it through the justice framework as a punishment for sin, meant to destroy our lives as retribution for what we have done wrong. Elihu also responds to Job’s complaint that God is silent; Elihu says that God speaks to us in dreams, and in the quiet of our soul God convicts us of the things we have done wrong. Even suffering itself is a form of God speaking, when he is “chastening” us for our sins (once again, implicitly denying Job’s innocence).
Elihu also denies that God is Job’s enemy. Otherwise the restoration narrative would not make sense, because God would never try to restore an enemy; instead, God is rebuking and chastening us for our sins, that we would repent and be restored to life and joy.
In conclusion, I think Elihu’s arguments share many fundamental characteristics with the three friends, but he does present a slightly different view on God’s character and God’s intent when causing Job to suffer. He nevertheless shares with the three friends the basic assumption that Job is sinning and God is punishing him as a form of rebuke.
In the next chapter, Elihu speaks to the three friends.
Verses 1- constitute an introduction of sorts. The only part of this that I find interesting is when Elihu says “no fear of me should terrify you” (v. 7). In comparison, Job said several times that God had all this power and strength to “terrify” Job, and that Job could not speak to him on equal terms because of it. What Elihu is saying then is that Elihu does not have the strength to overpower Job, and therefore only the persuasion and virtue of his arguments stands against Job’s complaint.
The meat of Elihu’s response is verses 14-30. In this passage, Elihu presents a story of some kind to explain, in a sense, how God relates to men.
In the beginning of this story, God speaks to men in dreams at night (v. 15) to warn them and instruct them in God’s ways, to turn them away from sin. Afterwards, if instruction does not suffice, then God “chastens” men with pain and sickness. This is still when they are on their beds, but instead of lying in bed in the restfulness of sleep, they now lie in bed in tremendous pain, wasting away and drawing near to the pit of death.
Man draws near to this pit of death, but then there is a moment when “a ransom” is found and the man is saved from death. Even though he draws near to the very edge, he is not cast over into the darkness of the abyss. An angel comes and declares some kind of ransom, then beginning in verse 25 the man is restored to health and is received by God. This begins the upward arc as the man “sees [God’s] face with joy” and is “brought back” from “the pit” (v. 30).
Even though Elihu is presented as being an alternative voice from the three friends, his argument here seems to have a lot of similarities to the repentance-and-redemption narrative that that Eliphaz shared in chapter 5. Eliphaz made the same argument a second time in Job 22:21-23. I felt that “repentance leads to restoration” was implicit in all of the three friends’ arguments, though they did not always say it directly. Here it seems central to Elihu’s moral framework as well, with verse 26 expressing the thought: “Then he will pray to God, and God will accept him”. Elihu also echoes the three friends in his repudiation of Job’s self-proclaimed innocence. That Job has some kind of sin in his life is implicit to the very notion that Job should repent, because otherwise he would have no reason to repent.
The biggest difference I can perceive between Elihu and the three friends is that Elihu views suffering as part of God’s redemptive work, to bring people to repentance, rather than viewing it through the justice framework as a punishment for sin, meant to destroy our lives as retribution for what we have done wrong. Elihu also responds to Job’s complaint that God is silent; Elihu says that God speaks to us in dreams, and in the quiet of our soul God convicts us of the things we have done wrong. Even suffering itself is a form of God speaking, when he is “chastening” us for our sins (once again, implicitly denying Job’s innocence).
Elihu also denies that God is Job’s enemy. Otherwise the restoration narrative would not make sense, because God would never try to restore an enemy; instead, God is rebuking and chastening us for our sins, that we would repent and be restored to life and joy.
In conclusion, I think Elihu’s arguments share many fundamental characteristics with the three friends, but he does present a slightly different view on God’s character and God’s intent when causing Job to suffer. He nevertheless shares with the three friends the basic assumption that Job is sinning and God is punishing him as a form of rebuke.
In the next chapter, Elihu speaks to the three friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)