Dataset Viewer
text
stringlengths 0
5.27k
|
|---|
JOBTHE NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARYFrom biblical text ... to contemporary life JOHN H. WALTONWITH KELLY LEMON VIZCAINO
|
ZONDERVANThe NIV Application Commentary: Job Copyright © 2012 by John H. Walton Requests for information should be addressed to:Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Walton, John H. Job / John H. Walton with Kelly Lemon Vizcaino. p. cm. —(The NIV application commentary)Includes bibliographical references and indexes. e Pub edition November 2014: ISBN 978-0-310-49200-9ISBN: 978-0-310-21442-7 (hardcover)1. Bible. O. T. Job—Commentaries. I. Title. BS1415. 53. W35 2012223′. 1077—dc23 2012001539All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc. ® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. Any Internet addresses (websites, blogs, etc. ) and telephone numbers in this book are offered as a resource. They are not intended in any way to be or imply an endorsement by Zondervan, nor does Zondervan vouch for the content of these sites and numbers for the life of this book. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.
|
To my son Jon,who persuaded me to write this commentary,then became thoroughly involved to improve it at every turn. His contributions are immeasurable and my gratitude is unbounded.
|
Contents How to Use This Commentary Series Introduction General Editor's Preface Author's Preface Abbreviations Introduction Outline of Job Basic Bibliography on the Book of Job Text and Commentary on Job Job 1Job 2Job 3Job 4-14Job 15-21Job 22-27Job 28Job 29-31Job 32-37Job 38-41Job 42Technical Appendix Scripture Index Subject Index Notes
|
How to Use This Commentary Thank you for purchasing the Harper Collins Christian Publishing e Book version of The NIV Application Commentary. What is the difference between an e Book and a print book?e Book versions contain all of the content and supplementary materials found in the original print versions and are optimized for navigation in the various apps and devices used for display. e Readers recognize text as one fluid string and are formatted in a single column. e Readers currently do not support the more complex layout seen in print version books. Therefore, some content may not appear in the same place as in the original print version, but it is structured consistently and uses hyperlinks to navigate between related content. How do I use the e Book Table of Contents?*Important Note: Be sure to consult your device manufacturer's User's Guide for device-specific navigation instructions. *The Table of Contents is the primary navigation anchor to quickly access various parts of the e Book. It is generally formatted in the same order as the original print version and is hyperlinked as follows: Introductory Materials Commentary Indexes Selecting an entry in the Table of Contents takes you to that location in the e Book. Selecting the title of that specific entry or using your device's “Back” button or function takes you back to the main Table of Contents. How do I navigate the content?The e Book version of The NIV Application Commentary includes introductory materials, commentary, footnotes, scripture index, and subject index. Hyperlinks to the materials appear in the Table of Contents as well as the main book text. Introductory materials are hyperlinked directly to the content-specific location in the main text. Select the hyperlinked entry in the article or list to go to its location in the main text. Select the hyperlinked entry in the main text to go back to the article or list in the Table of Contents or use the device's “Back” button or function to go back to the last selection. Select the hyperlinked verse number(s) in the main text to go directly to the Bible Appendix. Use the device's “Back” button or function to go back to the last selection.--> Footnotes in the Commentary are marked with small, hyperlinked numbers “1” to access comments and citations. Select the hyperlinked number in the main text to the corresponding footnote. Select the hyperlinked number to the left of the footnote to go back to the main text or use the device's “Back” button or function to go back to the last selection. Scripture Index includes hyperlinks directly to the Bible Verse citations in the main text. Select the Scripture Index from the Table of Contents. Select the hyperlinked page number “1” to go directly to the citation in the main text. Use the device's “Next Page/Previous Page” button or function to scroll through the pages. Use the device's “Back” button or function to go back to the last selection Subject and Author Indexes are hyperlinked directly to the content-specific location in the main text. Select an Index from the Table of Contents. Select the hyperlinked letter of the alphabet “A” to go to a corresponding list of entries. Use the device's “Next Page/Previous Page” button or function to scroll through the entries. Select the hyperlinked page number “1” to go to the main text. Select the footnote entry marked with “n1” to the corresponding footnote. Use the device's “Back” button or function to go back to the last selection. Select the Bible Appendix from the Table of Contents. Book links go directly to the beginning of the book. Chapter links go directly to the beginning of the chapter associated with a book. Every Bible book and chapter hyperlink goes back to the Bible Appendix chapter listing. Use the device's “Next Page/Previous Page” button or function to scroll through the verses. Use the device's “Back” button or function to go back to the last selection.-->
|
NOTES: The Bible Translation quoted by the authors in the main Commentary, unless otherwise indicated, is taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
|
NIV Application Commentary Series Introduction THE NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY Series is unique. Most commentaries help us make the journey from our world back to the world of the Bible. They enable us to cross the barriers of time, culture, language, and geography that separate us from the biblical world. Yet they only offer a one-way ticket to the past and assume that we can somehow make the return journey on our own. Once they have explained the original meaning of a book or passage, these commentaries give us little or no help in exploring its contemporary significance. The information they offer is valuable, but the job is only half done. Recently, a few commentaries have included some contemporary application as one of their goals. Yet that application is often sketchy or moralistic, and some volumes sound more like printed sermons than commentaries. The primary goal of the NIV Application Commentary Series is to help you with the difficult but vital task of bringing an ancient message into a modern context. The series not only focuses on application as a finished product but also helps you think through the process of moving from the original meaning of a passage to its contemporary significance. These are commentaries, not popular expositions. They are works of reference, not devotional literature. The format of the series is designed to achieve the goals of the series. Each passage is treated in three sections: Original Meaning, Bridging Contexts, and Contemporary Significance. Original Meaning THISSECTIONHELPSYOU understand the meaning of the biblical text in its original context. All of the elements of traditional exegesis—in concise form—are discussed here. These include the historical, literary, and cultural context of the passage. The authors discuss matters related to grammar and syntax and the meaning of biblical words. 1 They also seek to explore the main ideas of the passage and how the biblical author develops those ideas. After reading this section, you will understand the problems, questions, and concerns of the original audience and how the biblical author addressed those issues. This understanding is foundational to any legitimate application of the text today. Bridging Contexts THISSECTIONBUILDSA bridge between the world of the Bible and the world of today, between the original context and the contemporary context, by focusing on both the timely and timeless aspects of the text. God's Word is timely. The authors of Scripture spoke to specific situations, problems, and questions. The author of Joshua encouraged the faith of his original readers by narrating the destruction of Jericho, a seemingly impregnable city, at the hands of an angry warrior God (Josh. 6). Paul warned the Galatians about the consequences of circumcision and the dangers of trying to be justified by law (Gal. 5:2-5). The author of Hebrews tried to convince his readers that Christ is superior to Moses, the Aaronic priests, and the Old Testament sacrifices. John urged his readers to “test the spirits” of those who taught a form of incipient Gnosticism (1 John 4:1-6). In each of these cases, the timely nature of Scripture enables us to hear God's Word in situations that were concrete rather than abstract. Yet the timely nature of Scripture also creates problems. Our situations, difficulties, and questions are not always directly related to those faced by the people in the Bible. Therefore, God's word to them does not always seem relevant to us. For example, when was the last time someone urged you to be circumcised, claiming that it was a necessary part of justification? How many people today care whether Christ is superior to the Aaronic priests? And how can a “test” designed to expose incipient Gnosticism be of any value in a modern culture?Fortunately, Scripture is not only timely but timeless. Just as God spoke to the original audience, so he still speaks to us through the pages of Scripture. Because we share a common humanity with the people of the Bible, we discover a universal dimension in the problems they faced and the solutions God gave them. The timeless nature of Scripture enables it to speak with power in every time and in every culture. Those who fail to recognize that Scripture is both timely and timeless run into a host of problems. For example, those who are intimidated by timely books such as Hebrews, Galatians, or Deuteronomy might avoid reading them because they seem meaningless today. At the other extreme, those who are convinced of the timeless nature of
|
Scripture, but who fail to discern its timely element, may “wax eloquent” about the Melchizedekian priesthood to a sleeping congregation, or worse still, try to apply the holy wars of the Old Testament in a physical way to God's enemies today. The purpose of this section, therefore, is to help you discern what is timeless in the timely pages of the Bible—and what is not. For example, how do the holy wars of the Old Testament relate to the spiritual warfare of the New? If Paul's primary concern is not circumcision (as he tells us in Gal. 5:6), what is he concerned about? If discussions about the Aaronic priesthood or Melchizedek seem irrelevant today, what is of abiding value in these passages? If people try to “test the spirits” today with a test designed for a specific first-century heresy, what other biblical test might be more appropriate?Yet this section does not merely uncover that which is timeless in a passage but also helps you to see how it is uncovered. The authors of the commentaries seek to take what is implicit in the text and make it explicit, to take a process that normally is intuitive and explain it in a logical, orderly fashion. How do we know that circumcision is not Paul's primary concern? What clues in the text or its context help us realize that Paul's real concern is at a deeper level?Of course, those passages in which the historical distance between us and the original readers is greatest require a longer treatment. Conversely, those passages in which the historical distance is smaller or seemingly nonexistent require less attention. One final clarification. Because this section prepares the way for discussing the contemporary significance of the passage, there is not always a sharp distinction or a clear break between this section and the one that follows. Yet when both sections are read together, you should have a strong sense of moving from the world of the Bible to the world of today. Contemporary Significance THISSECTIONALLOWSTHE biblical message to speak with as much power today as it did when it was first written. How can you apply what you learned about Jerusalem, Ephesus, or Corinth to our present-day needs in Chicago, Los Angeles, or London? How can you take a message originally spoken in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic and communicate it clearly in our own language? How can you take the eternal truths originally spoken in a different time and culture and apply them to the similar-yet-different needs of our culture?In order to achieve these goals, this section gives you help in several key areas. (1) It helps you identify contemporary situations, problems, or questions that are truly comparable to those faced by the original audience. Because contemporary situations are seldom identical to those faced by the original audience, you must seek situations that are analogous if your applications are to be relevant. (2) This section explores a variety of contexts in which the passage might be applied today. You will look at personal applications, but you will also be encouraged to think beyond private concerns to the society and culture at large. (3) This section will alert you to any problems or difficulties you might encounter in seeking to apply the passage. And if there are several legitimate ways to apply a passage (areas in which Christians disagree), the author will bring these to your attention and help you think through the issues involved. In seeking to achieve these goals, the contributors to this series attempt to avoid two extremes. They avoid making such specific applications that the commentary might quickly become dated. They also avoid discussing the significance of the passage in such a general way that it fails to engage contemporary life and culture. Above all, contributors to this series have made a diligent effort not to sound moralistic or preachy. The NIV Application Commentary Series does not seek to provide ready-made sermon materials but rather tools, ideas, and insights that will help you communicate God's Word with power. If we help you to achieve that goal, then we have fulfilled the purpose for this series. The Editors
|
General Editor's Preface THEREISGOODREASON why Christian theologians consider theodicy the unsolvable theological issue. The reason is this: It is unsolvable. Yet this does not stop generation after generation of theological scholars from trying to solve it. And the biblical text they most often reference in this Sysiphian task is the book of Job. John Walton, author of this NIVAC commentary on Job, breaks the mold of these kinds of Job commentaries. To ask why God blesses, or doesn't bless, the righteous, or why God punishes, or doesn't punish, the wicked is to ask the wrong question when trying to understand this classic work. God's justice is ultimately unfathomable to us. God is just—we know that by faith—but we can't know how God is just. Thus, the book of Job does not answer that question, Walton avers; rather, it answers another question. Our task in reading Job is to read it as the answer to an unspoken question and then from the answer infer the correct question. This approach seems to make superfluous a lot of folk theological wisdom we have learned about Job over the years. We learn a lot about Middle Eastern approaches to theodicy—all futile, of course. We have all gained some solace in knowing that undeserved suffering is not ours alone to bear—others experience it too. But the genius of Walton's exposition is that once we get the core question right, all of this other wisdom we have learned about Job remains just as meaningful to us, but with a slightly different twist and a more satisfying context—the context set by the right question. I know. You probably want to know what the right question is. Patience. Have patience because in addition to Walton's groundbreaking insights regarding the right question, he tells us all we need to know about this somewhat enigmatic book. Unlike many books of the Bible, we don't know the author of Job or its date of composition. We do not really know whether it is based on historical events (and a historical person named Job) or whether it is a purely literary construction—a “thought experiment,” as Walton labels it. We don't really know why the Hebrew language used in it is so complex. We recognize its genre as wisdom literature, but this is of little help because it is head and shoulders above other Near Eastern wisdom literature of this sort in terms of quality and sophistication. All of this Walton discusses expertly, and the reader comes away feeling informed. Please notice that this is the only one of the forty volumes of the NIV Application Commentary published thus far that has a second author on the title page. Part of Professor Walton's convictions about this book is that even if it is a “thought experiment,” it cannot be fully understood without relating it to real life—not just the legendary Job, but someone we know, here and now, in the twenty-first century. Enter Kelly Lemon Vizcaino. Kelly's relating of the lessons of Job to her own personal experiences of suffering appear throughout the book. “She has added an element of reality that is necessary for a work like this. ” Suffering is not, in the end, a philosophical, or even a theological problem, but a human problem. We all suffer, some more than others, but the quantity really doesn't matter. What matters is what suffering teaches us about God. But there I am getting dangerously close to telling you what the real question is, the one that Job answers. So what's the right question that the book of Job answers? What is the right question we should be asking? Read the book—first the book of Job, and then this commentary.
|
Author's Preface I HAVEHADTHE great privilege of having three marvelous teaching assistants while I was writing this commentary, all of whom were expert editors. I am grateful for their contribution in ensuring that I actually communicated the ideas that I wanted to get across. Ashley Edewaard and Kathryn Cobb both spent countless hours rewriting my sentences to make them effective and clear. Aubrey Buster did the same, but additionally read the manuscript numerous times providing critique of the ideas that I was trying to convey. Her input is reflected throughout the manuscript in more ways than I can recount. Many times, she was able to provide whole sentences that improved greatly on what I was trying to say. It was not uncommon that her wording corrected overstatements or logical non sequiturs. I am grateful and indebted to each for their conscientious work that served me well and will therefore serve the reader. I would also like to thank Matthew Patton for preparing the indices. Finally, I am very grateful that Kelly Lemon Vizcaino was willing to share her story, her life, and her struggles. As difficult as it was for her, she has added an element of reality that is necessary for a work such as this. Her courage is an inspiration to me, and I hope also to each reader.
|
Abbreviations AB Anchor Bible ABY Anchor Bible: Yale University Press Af OArchiv für Orientforschung ANETAncient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Ed. J. B. Pritchard AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament As. Mos. Assumption of Moses BBRBulletin of Biblical Research BETSBulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society Bib Biblica Bib Int Biblical Interpretation BJS Brown Judaic Studies BMBefore the Muses, 3rd ed. Ed Benjamin Foster BSac Bibliotheca sacra BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft CADThe Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago CANECivilizations of the Ancient Near East. Ed. J. Sasson CAT Commentaire de l'Ancien Testament CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Con BOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series CTACorpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Ed. A. Herdner. COSContext of Scripture. Ed. W. W. Hallo DCHDictionary of Classical Hebrew. Ed. D. J. A. Clines DDD2Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Ed. K. van der Toorn et al. 2nd ed. EBCExpositors Bible Commentary GKCGesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Ed. E. Kautzsch. Trans. A. E. Cowley. HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Trans. and ed. M. E. J. Richardson HMS Harvard Semitic Monographs HUCAHebrew Union College Annual IBHSIntroduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Ed. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor JBLJournal of Biblical Literature JNESJournal of Near Eastern Studies JPS Jewish Publication Society JSOTJournal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement series Jub. Jubilees KJV King James Version KTUDie keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. 2nd ed. Ed. M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. LXX Septuagint NASB New American Standard Bible NIBC New International Biblical Commentary NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDOTTENew International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. W. Van Gemeren NIV New International Version NJPSTanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text NRSV New Revised Standard Version NSBT Studies in Biblical Theology
|
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis OTL Old Testament Library PT Pyramid Texts PSCFPerspectives on Science and Christian Faith RIMA The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods RP Retribution Principle RSV Revised Standard Version SAA State Archives of Assyria SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World TDOTTheological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren, and Heiz-Josef Fabry TJTrinity Journal TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Tyn Bul Tyndale Bulletin WBC Word Biblical Commentary WTJWestminster Theological Journal ZIBBCOTZondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Ed. J. H. Walton
|
Introduction1Purpose of the Book“ITWASADARK and stormy night....” So begins the novel perpetually being attempted by Snoopy in the Peanuts comic strip. The humor is in the cliché. The cliché has its roots, I imagine, in the fact that novels want to draw the reader in by posing an intriguing scenario filled with danger and mystery. But when our lives are reading like that novel, the idle curiosity of a casual reader is replaced with the sorrow or abject fear of a person in crisis. No one is immune to “dark and stormy nights,” and reading about Job's is designed to help us know how to think about our own. The title character of the book of Job is caught in the ultimate “dark and stormy night” of a life gone tragically wrong. We should not mistakenly think that this book is just about Job, however; it is about all of us. Though the book does engage in extremes, it is not trying to minimize anyone else's suffering in comparison, for suffering cannot be measured objectively. Regardless of where anyone's experiences fit on the spectrum of pain and suffering, we are all prone to ask the same questions. These questions direct us to the central subject of the book, God himself, for he is the one to whom we direct our confused questions and perplexed musings. Archibald Mac Leish, in his Pulitzer Prize winning play J. B., frames it this way:Millions and millions of mankind Burned, crushed, broken, mutilated,Slaughtered, and for what? For thinking!For walking round the world in the wrong Skin, the wrong-shaped noses, eyelids:Sleeping the wrong night wrong city—London, Dresden, Hiroshima. There never could have been so many Suffered more for less. But where do I come in?2Mac Leish had the same questions that we all direct heavenward, but as an existentialist, he had no answers. Like Job and like Mac Leish, we are long on questions but short on answers. Does the book of Job offer any satisfaction? Many have thought not—that like Mac Leish, the book simply restates the perennial and ubiquitous questions that plague humankind in a world full of pain and suffering. I disagree. Perhaps we have not recognized the answers the book offers because we have asked the wrong questions—or, more accurately, the less important questions. When in Acts 3 the crippled beggar asks for money, Peter instead gives him healing. The beggar had not thought to ask for that. Sometimes what we ask for is too limited to do us any real good. We must learn to ask better questions so that we might find the more significant answers. To this end, the book of Job repeatedly shows us that what we thought were the most poignant questions are not significant enough, and it dismisses them. At long last it leads us to the most momentous questions by introducing a whole series of answers, answers that at first seem oblique. In fact, many have been willing to dismiss the answers as a mere smokescreen and turn away from the book disillusioned and disappointed. But if we allow the answers to prompt us to the right questions, we will discover the wealth that the book has to offer. The book is not about Job, his friends, or the Challenger. 3 I have suggested it is about all of us, and ultimately about God. 4 Our questions about suffering inevitably lead to God, for when we go through difficult times in life, there is no one else to question—he is the one whose ways we seek to understand. When we ask “Why me?” we are in effect asking “How does God work?” We may start out asking why we deserved this, but ultimately the question we arrived at is, “What kind of God are you?” In all our difficult experiences, eventually we arrive at the place where it is no longer us, but God who is on trial. As we examine the book in detail, it becomes clear that Job is not on trial. In fact, he is declared innocent from beginning to end by all parties. When the Challenger suggests that Job's motives may be self-interested, he has no evidence, only suspicions—possible explanations for Job's pristine conduct. Job is thereby tacitly exonerated because there is no concrete evidence against him. When Job's friends go hunting for offenses, they likewise have no hard evidence to offer and can only suggest possible misdemeanors. Though Job and his friends may believe
|
he is on trial, the prologue shows that this is a misunderstanding. Rather, it is God's policies that have been called into question, and he therefore takes the role of defendant. 5 Job becomes deeply enmeshed in this trial and is central to it, but he is not on trial. This concept will be explored in greater depth in the commentary, but a summary here is apropos. The Challenger's question, “Does Job fear God for nothing?” (1:9) centers on Job's motivation for serving God and suggests that God's treatment of the righteous is the incentive for righteous conduct. The policy under scrutiny is known today as the Retribution Principle (RP): the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer. If this is a truism, then the motives of righteous-acting people may be corrupted by the lure of prosperity, because if such material gain is the inevitable result of righteousness, true righteousness becomes illusionary and elusive. The Challenger's claim is therefore that God's policy of rewarding the righteous actually undermines, if not subverts, the very righteousness that he seeks to foster. 6 In warfare, there is no true faithfulness in mercenaries. The RP has the potential of turning would-be righteous people into “benefit mercenaries” as it trains them to ask, “What's in it for me?” We might see the issue more clearly if we compare the criticism that some politicians have of entitlement programs: They claim that welfare, food stamps, and the like are bad policy because they make people lazy and dependent. My son is an artist, and I noticed when he was grade school, still drawing dogs or dinosaurs, he used to either draw them upside down or draw the feet before he drew the rest of the figure. When I asked why, he replied that everything could be put in better proportion if he approached the drawing in this way. We find this same principle at work as we reflect on the literary artistry of the book of Job. The Challenger puts God's policies to the test by suggesting that it is counterproductive for God to bless righteous people, for it makes them less righteous (in motive, if not in action). Such an accusation gives the book an interesting twist, for while we might be inclined (along with Job and his friends) to spend time thinking about why righteous people suffer, the Challenger turns the question upside down and asks why they should prosper. It is drawing the picture upside down to put everything in better perspective. In this way the book gives us the answers we need rather than the answers we thought we wanted. After God accepts the proposal of the Challenger, Job's suffering begins, which provides the other side of the dilemma. Even as the Challenger suggests it is bad policy for righteousness to result in prosperity (ethically counterproductive), Job presses his point that it is bad policy for God's most faithful people to suffer (theologically counterintuitive). 7 Caught on the horns of this dilemma, what is a God to do? This is what the book is going to sort out. Because the book is about God, the teaching that it offers is valuable to all of us. It does not tell us why Job or any of us suffer, but it does tell us a bit about how we should think about God when we are suffering. This is what we really needed to know anyway. In summary, then, the purpose of this book is to explore God's policies with regard to suffering in the world, especially by the righteous or the innocent. In the process it seeks to revolutionize our thinking about God and the way that he runs the world. Most importantly, the book shifts our attention from the idea that God's justice (represented in the RP) is foundational to the operation of the world to the alternative that God's wisdom is the more appropriate foundation. 8 It does not offer a reason for suffering and does not try to defend God's justice. It does not answer the “why” question that we are so prone to ask when things go wrong. Instead, we are to trust God's wisdom and, in the process, to conclude by faith that he is also just. In truth, we will never be in a position to evaluate God's justice. In order to appraise the justice of a decision, we must have all the facts, for justice can be derailed if we do not have all the information. Because we never have all the information about our lives, we cannot judge God when he brings experiences to us or make claims and demands. We cannot reach an affirmation about God's justice through our own limited insight or experiences. We affirm his justice by faith directed toward his wisdom. As we will see, God's speech at the end does not offer a defense of his justice, but of his wisdom and power. The book, therefore, wants to transform how we think about God's work in the world and about our responses in times of suffering. Most people look at the book, thinking that it deals with the question of why righteous people suffer. Instead, the book sets out the question as, “Is there such a thing as disinterested righteousness?”9 In this sense the book is about the nature of righteousness, not the nature of suffering. As the book unfolds, we are
|
going to discover that Job's motives are indeed pure (he values righteousness over benefits), but his concept of God and his understanding of God's policies are going to need modification. Author and Date THESHORTANSWERIS that while we do not know the author or the date, this lack of information does not affect our interpretation of the book. Literary works in the ancient world were largely anonymous, and it was not unusual for them to go through development as they were transmitted from generation to generation. Scholars have traditionally placed the events of this book in the patriarchal period, citing the absence of any reference to covenant or law. Two facts join to support the conclusion that the book is set before the time of Moses: Job's service as the family priest and the lack of reference to a sanctuary. Against such an inference, we need only note that Job is not an Israelite (he is from the land of Uz, 1:1). We would therefore not expect any reference to covenant or law, priest, or temple. We could explore some of the potential historical references in the book, such as to the Sabeans (1:15) and Chaldeans (1:17), but such studies do not yield consistent results. Many have also focused on the specialized language of the book, such as the arcane term qesitah (42:11), a unit of money found elsewhere only in early literature (Gen. 33:19; Josh. 24:32). But these give little to go on. Scholars do not contest that the book contains arcane features, but there is not sufficient information to date either the setting of the story or the composition of the book with any confidence. Even if we could provide such dates, it would make no difference in the book's interpretation. We should also note that the language of the book has been the subject of much discussion. The book is uncontested for the complexity of its Hebrew. Scholars have attempted to identify it as a dialect or even as a translation, but no such suggestions have been substantiated or widely accepted. 10 All of this is to say that until we have more to go on, we cannot use the language of the book to determine its date. Literature and History: The Genre of the Book of Job WEMIGHTNEXTREASONABLY ask about the nature of the events. In the end this is a genre question. Is the author presenting the events of the book as actual occurrences? Was there such a man as Job? Did he suffer in these ways? Were there friends who came and discussed his plight with him? Is the book suggesting that there was such a scenario in heaven? Was there a divine appearance from the whirlwind?All of these questions get at the same issue: How much of the book is literary artifice and how much is a journalistic reporting of real events?11 Either option could be legitimate genres for canonical texts and could provide the authority for sacred writ. How important is this question and how should it be approached? Often we are guided by the claims we presume that the book makes for itself. We also are inclined to check any of these supposed claims by other authoritative, canonical sources. Along with all of this evidence, we are often also driven by our own presuppositions and traditions. We might deduce from the fact that the book gives the names of Job's daughters at the end of the book (42:14) that the reader is expected to link them to known history, but any such connections are lost to us. Little else in the book suggests that the author is urging us toward a historical reading of the book. References to Job in the Old Testament (Ezek. 14:14, 20) and in the New Testament (James 5:11) have been used to argue that Job is an historical figure, but such reference could just as easily be made to a literary figure. Job's perseverance and righteousness could be drawn on effectively in either case, so these references prove nothing. Before we move on too hastily, however, we might also inquire whether there are literary figures in the ancient world. We know that there are legendary figures, but there is no reason to believe that the legends are not built around historical persons (e. g., Gilgamesh, Adapa, Etana, Kirtu). How then would we establish that a character was simply a literary figure rather than an historical person? Perhaps the better question is whether this distinction really matters, for the argument of the book does not depend on the historicity of the main characters. This is different from the story of, say, Abraham. There the integrity of the text depends on whether there actually was a man named Abraham to whom God made certain promises. If there were no such man, there was no covenant. The situation in Job, however, is not the same. Though there may be purely literary characters in the literature of the ancient world, ancient authors were more likely to construct their literature around epic figures of the distant past than to fabricate “fiction” as we understand
|
it today. 12 This practice is illustrated in the Mesopotamian wisdom work known as Ludlul bel nemeqi, a first-person narration of someone who suffered greatly and did not know why. His name can be deduced from the work, and analysts do not hesitate to consider him a real person. 13 Weiss builds the case that the introduction of Job's name indicates syntactically that Job's character and reputation are familiar to all. 14 For these reasons, we may rightly assume that Job was a historical figure—a man who was righteous and suffered greatly. 15 We lose nothing by accepting Job's story as historical, and we gain nothing by concluding that he is a fabricated, fictional character. Yet questions concerning the nature and genre of the book are far more complex than simply determining whether Job really existed and underwent such suffering. For example, even the most conservative and traditional of recent interpreters grant that the speeches of Job and his friends are literary artifice rather than journalistic transcripts. No stenographer would have been present; furthermore, people do not talk extemporaneously in such elevated prose. If we agree that the speeches are literary artifice, we must then ask which other parts of the book are in the same category; in fact, is every part of the book in the same category? If the speeches are literary constructions, are the friends themselves literary constructions? That is, are they designed to represent certain approaches to the question of suffering?These questions are the same as those that surround other philosophical literature from the world of antiquity. For example, Socrates is a character in Plato's dialogues, in whose mouth Plato places his philosophy. The historical Socrates (and it is debated whether there was such a person) may not have said the things Plato has him say (the same goes for his [historical] interlocutors), may not have gone to trial in the same way, and may not have died the same way that Plato depicts. Ultimately, this makes no difference to Plato's philosophy; a discovery that there was no historical Socrates would not cast doubt on Platonism. In approaching this question, we must keep foremost in our mind that this book is manifestly and unarguably in the genre category of wisdom literature, not historical literature. 16 As wisdom literature it makes no claims about the nature of the events. In that sense the discussion about whether the events are real events is misplaced. A second understanding that is important is that as wisdom literature, this book would fit easily into the classification “thought experiment. ”17 In such a case the author is using the various parts of the book to pose a philosophical scenario that will be used to address the wisdom themes as we have articulated them above. 18 If the book of Job is a thought experiment, the reader is supposed to draw conclusions about God from the final point, not from every detail along the way. Consequently, for example, the opening scene in heaven is not intended to be used as a source of information about God's activities and nature. We would not rule out the possibility that such a scenario could happen, but we would be mistaken to think that author seeks to unfold a series of historical events. It is wisdom literature. 19The scene in heaven is not trying to explain why Job or any of us suffer. Job is never told about that scene, nor would he have derived any comfort from it. As I have taught Job to students over the years, the question frequently arises, “What sort of God is this who uses his faithful ones as pawns in bets with the devil?” I would suggest that we need not concern ourselves with this question. The scene in heaven, like the speeches of Job's friends, is part of the literary design of a thought experiment to generate discussion about how God runs the cosmos; it is not about trying to explain how Job got into such a difficult situation. The message of the book is offered at the end, in the speeches of God, not in the opening scenario, which only sets up the thought experiment. As wisdom literature the book of Job seeks to give us appropriate foundations for understanding how the world works and how God works in the world. The book reveals how things work in the world, not how things work in heaven. If we are seeking to satisfy our curiosity about whether the Challenger has such access to heaven or whether there are such conversations concerning particular individuals, we cannot rule it out, but we should not think that the answers are provided here. Shape and Structure WEMIGHTTHINKABOUT the composition of the book of Job by using an analogy to some issues in the natural sciences. “Intelligent Design” has introduced the concept of “irreducible complexity” as one way to criticize Neo-Darwinism's adequacy as an explanation of origins. Irreducible complexity describes an organism in which all of the parts are essential to its operation such that the parts could not have developed independently or sequentially, for the organism could not survive if it were lacking any of them in their fully developed form.
|
A similar claim of irreducible complexity could be made for the book of Job. The book includes dialogues, discourses, narratives, hymns, and laments (to name a few of the major sections), and each one has a significant role to play. If any of them were absent, the book would not accomplish its purpose. Many recent commentators have proposed a history of composition of the book; some suggest, for example, that the Elihu speeches are later additions, or the speeches of Yahweh don't fit very well. 20 Some opine that an original narrative (the frame) was later embellished by the poetic speeches, while others propose that the speeches came first and the narrative frame was added later. Such discussions may have academic value, but in the end they can only result in speculation that has little impact on our reading of the book. Elihu's speeches cannot be discarded as redundant—they make a significant contribution as they take the argument into new territory. God's speeches are not superfluous, obtuse, or irrelevant. None of the pieces can be discarded from this carefully and artfully constructed book. The following table offers the structure of the book that I find most persuasive. Narrative Frame: 1-3Dialogue Prologue: Heaven and Earth1-2Job's Opening Lament3Cycle One: 4-14Eliphaz4-5Job6-7Bildad8Job9-10Zophar11Job12-14Cycle Two: 15-21Eliphaz15Job16-17Bildad18Job19
|
Zophar20Job21Cycle Three: 22-27Eliphaz22Job23-24Bildad25Job26-27Interlude: Wisdom Hymn: 28Discourses Series One: 29-31Job: Reminiscences29Job: Affliction30Job: Oath of Innocence31Series Two: 32-37Elihu: Introduction and Theory32-33Elihu: Verdict on Job34Elihu: Offense of Job35Elihu: Summary36-37Series Three: 38-41Yahweh: Maintaining roles and functions in cosmic order38-39
|
Yahweh: Harnessing threats to cosmic order40:1-2; 40:6-41:34Narrative Frame: 42 Job's Closing Statements(40:3-5) 42:1-6Epilogue: Heaven and Earth42:7-17Note that there are three sets of speeches in the dialogue section (chs. 4-27), balanced by three sets of speeches in the discourse section (chs. 29-41). Leading into the dialogue section is Job's lament (ch. 3), which is balanced by Job's responses to God (esp. 42:1-6) coming out of the discourse section. Narrative frames the entire work. At the center of all this and most controversial is Job 28, which I have set off as the narrator's interjection that serves as a pivot for the book and a transition from the dialogues to the discourses. 21 Many commentators believe that chapter 28 is a speech of Job bridging from his last speech in the dialogue to his first speech in the discourses. 22 It is easy to understand how one would draw that conclusion, but a variety of reasons compel us to discard this option. N. Habel identifies the problem succinctly:For Job to return (in 28:28) to the traditional “fear of the Lord” would therefore mean returning to a posture of pious unquestioning submission which the friends had advocated all along and which he had repudiated time and again. 23Job's final speech in Job 27:7-23 shows a pessimistic, fatalistic despair that would be ill-matched to and arguably irreconcilable with chapter 28. Likewise, the speeches in 29-31 show no hint of the convictions expressed in chapter 28. 24 In his study of the forms and structure of Job, C. Westermann has concluded that the Wisdom hymn does not conform to any of the speeches by Job or his friends and therefore cannot derive from any one of them. 25 Habel summarizes the field as he observes that Job 28 is a brilliant but embarrassing poem for many commentators. It has been viewed as an erratic intrusion, an inspired intermezzo, a superfluous prelude, and an orthodox afterthought. 26In light of all of this, we may make the most sense of the text by viewing Job 28 as an interlude by the narrator. 27As a final observation, this bracketing out of Job 28 may also find some support in the speech formulas used in the book. Most of the speeches throughout all sections of the book are introduced by wayyaʾan (“he replied”). The only exceptions are Job 27:1; 29:1; and 36:1, where the text has wayyosep (“he continued”). The latter verb usually indicates continuing, repeating, or supplementing something that was done/said before. The placement and nature of these three speeches suggests that they should be taken as concluding summary remarks. Job 27 is Job's final statement regarding his friends' urgings and accusations. Job 29-31 is a summary of Job's position in the whole affair in relationship to his claim against God. Job 36-37 is Elihu's concluding summary statement. Unfortunately, the idea that a speech introduced by wayyosep can serve as a summary conclusion to a series of speeches introduced by wayyaʾan cannot be demonstrated by pointing to other contexts outside of Job. Extended dialogues are not common in the biblical text. 28 The structural points I would make are as follows:1. We would not expect two wayyosep speeches back-to-back, making it unlikely that chapters 27-28 are one speech and chapters 29-31 are another. 2. Chapter 28 is so radically distinct from the end of chapter 27 that it would call for some introductory speech formula if it came from the mouth of Job. If chapter 28 is put in the mouth of the narrator, it indicates that we have yet to hear true wisdom, even though we have now listened to extensive speeches from those characterized as the wisest in the ancient world. The accusation of the Challenger has been refuted even as the promptings and arguments of the friends have been rejected. Wisdom has yet to be heard, and Job's own claims have yet to be answered.
|
Job in the Ancient Near East SEVERALPIECESOFLITERATURE from the ancient Near East deal with the topic of individuals suffering for no apparent reason. 29 From a literary perspective none of these approach the topic with the subtlety and complexity of the book of Job. Though there is certainly no literary dependence in either direction, these pieces of literature are important because they show that this was a common philosophical discussion. They are also significant because they show the differences between the Israelite approach to the issue and that found in the surrounding cultures. Perhaps most importantly, by understanding what the typical ancient Near Eastern solutions were, we can see how the book of Job interacts with them and shows their inadequacy. Primary Texts DIFFERENTSTUDIESINCLUDEA variety of different pieces, but here we will mention only the most similar literature containing discussion surrounding a pious but suffering individual. While dates are not always easy to determine, generally speaking they range throughout the second millennium BC. The table on page 32 presents some analysis and comparison of these pieces. Mesopotamian Literature Compared with Job30Literature Status Condition Resolution Outcome Philosophy Theology A Man and His God31 (Sumerian)Ignorant of offense Illness; social outcast Sins confessed Restored to health No sinless child born Results in hymn of praise Dialogue between a Man and His God32 (Akkadian)Ignorant of offense Illness Text broken Restored to health None offered Divine favor assured Sufferer's Salvation33 (Akkadian, from Ugarit)No comment Illness; death imminent; omens obscure No indication Restored to health God brought his suffering then brought his healing Results in hymn of praise to Marduk Ludlul bel nemeqi34 (Akkadian)Conscientious piety; ignorant of offense Social outcast; omens obscure; illness; protective spirits chased away; demon oppression Dream appearance Purification bringing appeasement; offenses borne away; demons expelled; restored to health Gods are inscrutable Results in hymn of praise to Marduk Babylonian Theodicy35 (Akkadian)Claims piety Family gone; povertynonenone Purposes of gods remote; RP unreliable Gods make people with evil inclinations and prone to suffering
|
Job (Hebrew)Claims righteousness and conscientious piety Family taken; social outcast; illness; wealth taken Yahweh offers new perspective based on wisdom Restoration at all levels RP unreliable; divine wisdom is foundation God's justice is granted given his wisdom Similarities ASWECOMPARETHE principal pieces of Mesopotamian literature to Job, we find a number of superficial similarities. All feature an individual who is suffering, is baffled as to why he is suffering, and, in all but one case, is restored in the end. The sufferer in each case ponders his situation by laying his concerns before God or friends as he tries to understand the role of the gods in his plight. In that sense the scenarios are similar. As is often the case, however, when comparing the Bible to ancient Near Eastern exemplars, probing beneath the surface reveals many significant differences. Differences WHENWEBEGINTO penetrate beyond the superficial level of the general scenario, we find that Job differs on some important details as well as in its general philosophy and theology. 1. The nature of the suffering is different. In the ancient Near Eastern exemplars the major difficulty is health-related. Because of RP thinking, sudden serious illness was generally assumed to result from the gods' disfavor. Such illness inevitably led to social rejection, for if a god were angry with the sick individual, one would not want to be associated with that person. If a demon were causing the problem, it would likewise be best to keep one's distance. As the literature indicates, then, serious illness made one a social outcast. In contrast, Job loses his wealth and his family before he loses his health. The Mesopotamian pieces touch on poverty and lost family, but these are not presented as major issues. 2. The nature of the offenses considered in Job are never ceremonial. In the ancient Near East ritual offense was the most common sort of misdeed that a person could commit; though there were ritual expectations for the people, these were devised by society, not revealed by deity. Deity valued order in society, but moral responsibility was not understood as part of the people's responsibility toward the gods. Instead, humans were to care for the gods (through ritual), and they would incur the anger of the gods by failing to provide for them. One cannot, then, easily speak of “righteousness” in the ancient world, only of “piety” (by which I refer to conscientiousness in ritual activity). There was no orthodoxy (right belief), only orthopraxy (proper performance). In the Mesopotamian pieces deity is eventually appeased, whether by prayers, laments, or rituals. This appeasement of the deity is necessary in these scenarios because the deity is presumed to be angry or inexplicably moody. In Job there is no appeasement of Yahweh, for Yahweh is not angry; furthermore, Job specifically rejects the path of appeasement urged by his friends (27:2-6). This refusal is important to the book of Job, for Job's pursuit of appeasement would demonstrate that the Challenger was right. Appeasement focuses on regaining benefits and tacitly denies the place of righteousness. The Challenger had made that precise claim—that supposedly righteous people weren't really righteous, but only behaved righteously to gain benefits. The Mesopotamians pursued appeasement because they considered themselves to be in a symbiotic relationship with the gods. The gods had created people to serve their needs; in response to such service, the gods protected the faithful people and provided for them (e. g., fertile fields). This was the Great Symbiosis of religious thinking in the ancient world. It was benefit-based: the gods reaped benefits from the labor of humans, and the humans reaped benefits from the favor of the gods. This expectation was not based on the belief that the god was just, only that he or she was sensible. The gods needed what humans provided, and they in return were capable in most circumstances of providing protection. The system did not work this way because the gods were just, but because they were needy. The gods in the ancient world did not care about defending their character; they were concerned to preserve their prerogatives and their executive perquisites. When a god did not receive the cultic rites to which
|
he was entitled, his status was threatened and his wrath and/or abandonment was predictable. Appeasement was a vital part of this system, and if Job had pursued appeasement, he would have showed himself a part of this system. 3. In the ancient Near Eastern exemplars, the sufferers stood ready to acknowledge offense if they could only be shown what it was. They claimed ignorance while Job claims innocence. This stance would be difficult to maintain in the ancient Near East, for the gods were the ones who decided where sacred spaces were and what rituals needed to be performed. People who lived in Mesopotamia never believed that their information on these issues was comprehensive. Job, in contrast, is confident in his innocence. He clearly uses different standards by which he makes his claims. Job never acknowledges any offense (unlike his Mesopotamian counterparts), and God does not offer forgiveness in the process of restoration. 4. We can identify a number of Mesopotamian pieces that belong to the declarative praise genre, a genre that likewise appears frequently in the biblical Psalms. This genre is characterized by a lament, a petition, a favorable response by God, and an ending of praise. This is far different from the book of Job, which includes no concluding praise of Yahweh. The Mesopotamian pieces seem designed to feature praise, while Job omits it entirely. 5. While the themes of justice (God's) and righteousness (Job's) are central to the book of Job, neither is present in the ancient Near Eastern exemplars. In the ancient world the gods were interested in justice being maintained in the human realm. Shamash, for example, was the god of justice, and kings were accountable to him to maintain justice in society. The gods desired an equitable society because a stable and prosperous community most effectively provided for their needs. It is more difficult to establish that the gods themselves were just or unjust. The gods did what they wished. They were not consistent or predictable. They were neither moral nor immoral. Notice that the Mesopotamian pieces do not try to defend the justice of God (in the end, neither does the book of Job), nor do they question whether deity is just. The primary concern is the preservation of the parameters and rules of the Great Symbiosis, not of justice. These pieces are all about the relationship between piety and prosperity. The contrasts in Job show it to be a work thoroughly immersed in the Israelite theological system (see below). 6. Just as the gods were not necessarily just in the ancient world, neither were they necessarily responsible for evil or suffering. These elements were built into the fabric of the cosmos, but not by the gods or any other beings. Furthermore, demons or humans could be responsible for suffering or evil without necessarily involving the gods. In Israelite thinking God could not so easily be removed from the equation, though certainly humans could do evil. 7. The piety/prosperity matrix of the Great Symbiosis serves as the foundation of the Challenger's accusation against Job. If Job's response indicates that he is bound to this matrix, the Challenger has won his case. In other words, if Job is no different from all of the sufferers in the Mesopotamian literature, the Challenger has made his point. In this sense, while all of the Mesopotamian pieces end by affirming the traditional dogmas, in Job those very same traditional dogmas are voiced by the friends and persistently rejected by Job. 8. Job focuses on his own righteousness, not on the piety/prosperity matrix. While his Mesopotamian counterparts are not declared innocent at any point throughout the literature, Job is declared so from beginning to end. Unlike his Mesopotamian counterparts, Job never considers the option that he deserves what he is experiencing. 9. In the ancient Near East when one offended deity by some sort of ritual neglect or misstep, the deity might react by simply turning his back, leaving one vulnerable to demonic attack. In this way the deity was not the one actively bringing harm. These demons were not seen as doing the will of the deity; they were simply acting in character by attacking a vulnerable subject. The Challenger in Job, however, is not an independent agent opportunistically fulfilling its nature. Whatever he does, he does through the power of God; all the events of the book are understood as God's actions. Demons in their ancient Near Eastern role are absent from Old Testament theology, including Job. 10. Finally, it is evident that the philosophical and theological answers provided by the book of Job are far different from those offered in the ancient Near Eastern exemplars. Job rejects the easy answers of Mesopotamia (divine inscrutability, inherent sinfulness of humanity, gods who make humanity crooked). 36For Job these premises are acceptable to a degree, but they are not the answers that the book offers. Mesopotamian literature concludes that pious people do sometimes suffer, but this suffering has nothing to do with
|
divine injustice; it only means that one can never be fully comprehensive in one's ritual performance and therefore inadvertent offense is always possible. One can only increase one's piety and call out to the gods for mercy. Perhaps they will answer. Is there pious suffering? Yes. But it is no one's fault; it is just a possibility inherent in the very nature of the gods and the humans who blindly attempt to serve them in the Great Symbiosis. The texts from Mesopotamia consistently fail to affirm or defend the justice of deity. Instead they affirm pervasive and often ignorant offense by humans and the general inscrutability, or more likely, capriciousness of the gods. I wish I knew that these things were pleasing to one's god!What is proper to oneself is an offence to one's god;What in one's own heart seems despicable is proper to one's god. Who knows the will of the gods in heaven?Who understands the plans of the underworld gods?Where have mortals learnt the way of a god?37The answer offered by the book of Job is different. Here the answer is that yes, sometimes righteous people suffer, but this fact should not be the basis for deducing that God is unjust. Rather, it is a flawed philosophy to conclude that one's suffering or prosperity is directly related to one's behavior. The Great Symbiosis is not at the heart of human experience, but neither is the Retribution Principle. Instead, God's wisdom is at the heart of how the world operates and of what the resulting human experience is. In one sense this does suggest that God is inscrutable, but it is not capriciousness. Yahweh's inscrutability is a result of his infinite wisdom in contrast to our human limitations. Ancient Near East as Foil WITHSOMANYIMPORTANT differences, it is remarkable that some still speak of the book of Job as borrowing from the ancient Near Eastern exemplars. A more defensible model sees the ancient Near Eastern literature and mentality as a foil for the book of Job. Job's friends are the representatives of the ancient Near Eastern perspectives, and their views are soundly rejected. Nevertheless, we would have a poorer understanding of the book of Job if we did not look at it against its ancient Near Eastern backdrop. The world of the ancient Near East helps us to understand the way the book is framed and the issues it is dealing with. As we have become familiar with the literature of the ancient Near East, we have discovered the book of Job's conversation partners. Our understanding of Job is necessarily stilted if we have no awareness of the dialogue to which it contributes. Distinctly Israelite Features in Job INCONCLUSIONWECAN summarize the distinctly Israelite features in Job: no symbiosis (God does not have needs, Job 22:3) interest in justice of God interest in righteousness as an abstract concept Job seems to have a sense of personal righteousness that goes beyond what the ancient world would have provided no ritual offenses considered or ritual remedies suggested or pursued no appeasement pursued worship of celestial deities considered an offense (Job 31:26-28), as it would not have been in the ancient Near East shape of RP different since God could not be absolved of role in bringing suffering Theological Issues Retribution Principle and Theodicy38THE RETRIBUTION PRINCIPLE(RP) is the conviction that the righteous will prosper and the wicked will suffer, both in proportion to their respective righteousness and wickedness. In Israelite theology the principle was integral to the belief in God's justice. Since God is just, the Israelites believed it was incumbent on him to uphold the RP. Having a worldview in which God was absolutely just and compelled to maintain the RP, they developed the inevitable converse corollary, which affirmed that those who prospered must be righteous (i. e., favored by God) and those who suffered must be wicked (i. e., experiencing the judgment of God). The RP was thus an attempt to understand, articulate, justify, and systematize the logic of God's interaction in the
|
world. Because human experience often seemed to deny the tenets of the RP, the principle had to be qualified or nuanced in order to be employed realistically in the philosophical/theological discussion. How can God be just if he does not punish the wicked? In order to answer this question, the RP was frequently under discussion in Israelite theodicy (defense of God's justice in a world where suffering exists, which in modern terms extends into a philosophical discussion concerning the origin of evil), driven particularly by the context of ethical monotheism. The RP does not of necessity operate in the context of theodicy, but because of Israel's theological commitments this tendency is apparent in the Old Testament. The literature of the ancient Near East continually demonstrates that people believed that the administration of justice in the human world was a concern and responsibility of the gods. The questions that swirl around the RP lose their philosophical urgency in the ancient world because injustice is often blamed on demons and humans rather than on the gods. In Mesopotamian thinking, evil was built into the fabric of the cosmos by means of the “cosmic laws,”39 but even those were not established by the gods. Since evil existed outside of the jurisdiction of the gods, divine administration of justice did not necessarily eliminate suffering. Some misfortune came about simply because of how the world was. In both Egyptian and Mesopotamian thinking, the gods were not considered responsible for evil in the world; therefore, the presence or experience of evil did not have to be resolved in reference to the justice of the gods (this in contrast to Israel, where nothing existed totally outside the jurisdiction of God's sovereignty; i. e., the rest of the gods were contingent, but he was not). In the Sumerian Lament over the Destruction of Ur, the city is destroyed not as an act of justice or injustice, but because it was time for kingship to be passed on. Likewise with regard to individuals, suffering can sometimes just be one's fate for the present. It is also clear that personal misfortune could result from offending the gods, even if that offense was committed innocently. In such cases, the gods were not unjust; they simply were not very forthcoming about communicating their expectations. A sense and expectation of the RP at a basic level remains evident here, though the gods are relieved of responsibility because of the way their function in the cosmos is perceived. Even in the areas where the gods could be held responsible, they, like human judges, may be doing their best to administer justice, but do so imperfectly. In this sense, though people of Mesopotamia might believe that the gods do indeed punish those who earn their wrath, this conviction cannot offer an explanation for all suffering. The notion that those who suffer must be wicked could not work because in the ancient Near Eastern worldview, much of the suffering that people experienced was not orchestrated by the gods. Suffering could be the result of the god's inattention, of simple circumstance, or of the nature of the world. Even if the gods abandoned a person because of some offense, they were not responsible for the ensuing evil; they simply did nothing to prevent it, having withdrawn their favor and protection. Theodicy in its modern philosophical and existential guise concerns the origin and nature of suffering and evil. In theology proper (whether in mythology, in broad metaphysics, or in ethical monotheism), the philosophical question naturally focuses its attention on the divine role in suffering and the divine relationship to evil. The RP progresses from philosophy to pragmatism in trying to understand and formulate how deity acts in the world. To what extent can deity theoretically be considered responsible for the evil things that happen in this world? This question draws theodicy and the RP together in theological conundrum. We have suggested above that the gods in the ancient Near East were somewhat relieved of responsibility because their role in the origin of evil was limited, and because they were often only indirectly considered the cause of suffering. This understanding of the role of deity, along with ambivalence regarding the god's inherent justice, nearly eliminates theodicy from the discussion. Though people continued to have deep concerns over a deity's actions in the world and therefore their interests in the RP remained robust and vital, the RP could not be employed in theodicy. Given the above considerations, we would conclude that “theodicy” is a misnomer when applied to the ancient Near East. The origins of evil were impersonal and the gods were not just, nor did they take ethical responsibility for suffering. In Israel the absence of any source of divine authority other than Yahweh limited the philosophical possibilities regarding the origin of evil and the source of suffering (1 Sam. 2:6; Isa. 45:7; Job 2:10; Eccl. 7:14). There existed no supernatural power alongside Yahweh or outside of Yahweh's sphere of power. At the same time Yahweh was
|
considered powerful, good, and just. Thus one might say that the theodicy question bloomed in Israel, and in this hothouse of theological tension, the RP provided the traditional explanation, despite its obvious inconsistencies in accounting for human experience. In considering the biblical position we need to recognize the tension between RP as theodicy and RP as theology. The affirmations of the RP in the text are intended to be theological in nature, and they serve well in that capacity. By this I mean they offer a picture of God's nature: He delights in bringing blessing to his faithful ones and takes seriously the need to punish the sinful. In contrast, the Israelites were inclined to try to wield that theology in service to theodicy, a role for which it was singularly unsuitable. That is, they wanted to apply it to their expectations and experiences in life, and in the process to understand God's justice and the reasons behind suffering. The role of the book of Job is to perform the radical surgery that separates theology from theodicy, contending that in the end Yahweh's justice must be accepted on faith rather than worked out philosophically. He does not need to be defended; he wants to be trusted. The entire constellation of God's attributes is at work in a complex coordinated manner. Justice is part of that constellation, but it does not trump all other attributes. Thus the RP cannot serve the purposes of theodicy. In Israelite theology God is just and administers justice in the world. He employs the RP to disclose his character and to articulate the general parameters of his administration. This activity can be traced both on a corporate and individual level. Furthermore, the unique shape of the RP within Israelite thought is heavily influenced by two philosophical preconceptions: There is only one God, and there is no recognition of reward or punishment in the afterlife. Corporate Level, Covenant Theme ONACORPORATELEVEL this theology is expressed in the covenant blessings and curses. Consequently, it is also evident in the judgment oracles of the prophets, since they pronounce the doom that the Israelites have brought upon themselves by their covenant violations. The corporate aspects of the RP are worked out literarily by the Chronicler as he traces its effects through the history of the monarchy. On the corporate level, the RP provided for occasional tension (e. g., Psalm 44; Esther), but since it could be worked out over the long span of history, it carried less immediacy, urgency, or poignancy. Corporate RP in Israel is a covenant theme, and since covenant violation was rampant, the claim of innocence was difficult to maintain. Individual Wisdom Theme INCONTRAST,THE RP on the individual level is a wisdom theme. This connection is laid out plainly in Psalm 1 and is confirmed repeatedly in the central role of the RP in wisdom literature. It is important to note, however, that the biblical text only offers affirmation of the main proposition (“the righteous prosper, the wicked suffer”), not of the deduced converse corollary (“the one who prospers is righteous; the one who suffers is wicked”). According to the principles of modern logic, the corollary could only be asserted if the main proposition is true universally and consistently. Nevertheless, the book of Job and the need for such a book imply that the Israelites did tend to extend their expectations to include the corollary. The tension of the book is created by the corollary as both Job and his friends conclude that his suffering can only be explained as punishment from God. Connection to Monotheism and Afterlife SINCE ISRAELWASTO believe in only one God who was responsible for every aspect of the cosmos, it was difficult to absolve him from responsibility for suffering. In order for him to be considered just, they believed that he must maintain the RP. If there were no opportunity for God to achieve final justice in the afterlife, then he was obliged to demonstrate his justice within the lifetime of the individual; note Psalm 27:13: “I am still confident of this: I will see the goodness of the LORD in the land of the living. ” These factors combined to pose the conundrum of the RP and human experience and led to RP's use for theodicy. It is in Israel, therefore, that we see the formulation of the inherent connection between the RP and theodicy, a formulation that becomes commonplace in the history of theological discourse. Application to Job THEBOOKOF JOB is all about God's policies and the role of the RP in those policies. Neither the RP nor Job is on trial, despite the fact that both he and his friends assume he is (though the book declares him righteous—from God's mouth—from the beginning). M. Tsevat has proposed that the tension in the book can be diagrammed by a
|
triangle depicting the three elements to be defended by various proponents: God's justice, Job's righteousness, and the RP. 40 Given the situation that develops in the book, the proponents choose which element must be defended above all, and in the process must decide which of the three elements is expendable, for all three cannot be maintained simultaneously. Job's three friends defend the RP and show themselves willing to deny Job's righteousness to support their defense. In the first round of speeches they focus on God's protection of the righteous (4:6-7; 5:18-27; 8:5-7). The destruction of the wicked is stated in brief principle (11:11) and alluded to as the problem of Job's sons (8:4). In the second round, the emphasis is entirely on the punishment that comes to the wicked (15:20-35; 18:5-21; 20:4-29), and this same theme is picked up from a different perspective in the third round (22:15-20). This is all defense of the RP, not defense of God or his justice, though Bildad gets the closest in his contention that God does not pervert justice (8:3). At occasional junctures other affirmations are made concerning God: He is more righteous than human beings (4:17), he exercises his power in the world to accomplish his will (5:8-16; confirmed by Job in 12:13-25), he effects the RP (8:20-22) as judge he sees and knows (22:12-14), and he establishes order in the cosmos (25:2). As in the ancient Near Eastern literature, the friends fully believe in the RP but do not employ it for theodicy, though their view of God has more of an Israelite shape than an ancient Near Eastern one (specifically in that they do not treat God as having needs, nor do they see the solution in ritual terms). Nevertheless, they agree with the two basic tenets of ancient Near Eastern thinking regarding suffering: (1) they affirm human ignorance of what God demands and thus confirm innate human sinfulness (4:18-21; 22:5-9; 25:4-6); and (2) they likewise affirm the inscrutability of deity (11:7-9; 15:7-16). Job chooses to defend his own righteousness, and since he sees no possibility of neutralizing the RP, he is left with suspicions about God. In Job's speeches we find an anti-theodicy (i. e., God is not just; e. g., 19:6; 24:12) as he refuses to defend God or make excuses for him. Indeed, this is what God reprimands Job for (40:8). In contrast, Elihu distinguishes himself as the participant who actually offers a theodicy. His defense of God's justice falls under the category of “educative theodicy”—that is, suffering serves to bring potential problems to our attention so that they can be remedied. Elihu still believes in the RP and defends it, but it builds a case that suffering is not just God's response to past sin; it can also preempt future or potential sin. By choosing to defend God's corner of the triangle, he also calls Job's righteousness into question, but in a more nuanced way than the other friends. Elihu redefines the RP (preventive not remedial) and on the basis of that redefinition, he finds fault in Job's self-righteous response to suffering. In God's speeches we find the true solution in a revised perspective on God's policies and practices, and in a revised vision of the RP. The triangle is too simplistic and reduces God's policies to a narrow system in which justice is the foundational attribute and the RP is law. God does not choose one of the three elements of the triangle to defend—rather, he discards the triangle model as artificial and inadequate. The book thus offers a modified view of the RP that construes it in proverbial and theological terms. In other words, the RP is useful to describe what God is like and therefore serves as a basis for identifying general trends in human experience. However, the RP offers no guarantees. The book of Job in effect takes a contra-theodicy position (i. e., refuses to offer a theodicy) by defending God's wisdom rather than his justice. Though the book is not a theodicy, it is interested in the RP and its legitimacy. The RP is finally rejected as a foundation for divine activity in the human realm (i. e., as a theodicy), but it is reclaimed on the proverbial and anecdotal level as representing the character of deity (i. e., as a theology). God delights in bringing prosperity to the righteous, and he takes seriously the responsibility of punishing the wicked. God's restoration of Job at the end of the book serves the important function of reemphasizing God's commitment to the RP properly understood as a theological principle. This principle cannot be employed to assess character—whether that of God (theodicy) or the individual. Thus the basic premise of the RP is retained (righteous prosper, wicked suffer), but since it does not represent a strict formula that always maintains, the corollary fails: One's wickedness cannot be inferred when one is suffering, nor can one's righteousness be inferred when one is prospering. Israelite Theology versus Biblical Theology
|
DIDTHE ISRAELITESBELIEVE the RP and its converse? A sufficient number of texts imply that they knew it was not enforced moment by moment (e. g., Ps. 37:7, 25). That is, they realized that on certain occasions there might be a time lag before the books were balanced. With that caveat, they largely accepted the RP as true, and they were inclined to treat it as the main determining factor for God's activity. They also tended to accept the converse corollary as true and used it to shape their expectations and to formulate their theodicy. In contrast to this Israelite theology, the biblical theology of the wisdom literature is more cautious and nuanced. 41 The text never affirms the converse corollary, so it cannot be framed as a biblical teaching. Furthermore, Proverbs couches the RP in proverbial language, Ecclesiastes casts suspicion on it, and the book of Job details its limitations. Thus wisdom literature rejects the RP as providing a theodicy, yet embraces it in its theology. The contrast between the views of the character of Job and the teachings of Qoheleth in Ecclesiastes is instructive. We could imagine that Qoheleth would have much to say to Job had he joined the circle of Job's advisors. In fact, I often have had my students construct a conversation between Job and Qoheleth so as to draw out the issues. The following is one such dialogue. 42Q: I see that in your despair you have buried yourself among the ashes. Trust me, Job, I will not ask you not to mourn in your tragedy, and neither will I claim that you are not righteous. But tell me, why do you heap sorrow on top of your sorrow?J: What do you mean? Can I give myself more sorrow than the hand of the Almighty has already poured on me?Q: Yes. For you grieve not only about your tragedy, but also because such tragedy has come to you. You wail not only because you have lost your sons, but because you have lost your dignity and status before men. Which do you consider more unfair?J: Both are unfair! I have lived a righteous life. Q: When has God promised to reward your righteousness? Or, more to the point: Is it the anticipation of reward that has given you meaning in life?J: I have no meaning in life because God has treated me as a wicked person. He has taken away everything in life that could have had meaning. Q: Ah ... so many are on a quest for meaning in life. I myself have pursued many different quests and found them all incapable of delivering self-fulfillment—meaningless vanity. Tell me, what is the nature of your quest? What held meaning in life before your tragedy? Was it your good wife?J: No. Q: Your camels and riches?J: No Q: Your children? Your health?J: No, no, no—none of that!Q: Then tell me, why do you grieve now? How can you say that your life has lost its meaning? What you have lost, though tragic, was not what you based your life on. What did you base your life on?J: On God. But he has failed me. Q: Certainly it is better for a man to base his life on God than on his hope for the benefits God can give. But in what way would you say that God has failed you?J: Look at me—I've been made a fool! The God who promises to prosper the righteous and punish the wicked has raised his hand and lashed out at me. The God who I believed was just has failed me. That is why I am in despair. Q: Do you think that God can be forced to act according to such expectations? Who has told you that God must punish all the wicked and withhold suffering from the righteous?J: How can God be just if this is not so?Q: I have never seen it like that. In my lifetime I have seen many righteous people oppressed under evil rulers. J: Who is God then—a weakling who cannot oppose the wicked?Q: No, he is the one who stands over all and in wisdom decrees how the world operates. J: So, in this supposed wisdom, does your God not care about the righteous and wicked conduct of his creatures?Q: On the contrary. It is in the character of God to prosper the righteous and punish the wicked. In the long run, I know that it will be well for those who fear God. But, Job, we are here on this earth, and we cannot see beyond the
|
mountains that tower around us, nor do we know about tomorrow. There is a time for everything under the sun. So how can we know what is wisest? Since God is beyond all and sees all, might his wisdom sometimes look obscure to us?J: How then shall we live?Q: Take each day as it comes. When hardships come, endure them. When good things pass your way, seize them and enjoy them. And in all this continue to fear God and keep his commandments. You have looked for fulfillment in your own righteous standing before God, and now in your new quest you look for fulfillment in your vindication. Abandon the quest, Job! There is nothing under the sun that brings the sense of self-fulfillment and meaning that you seem to think that you deserve. Forget thinking about what caused your tragedy—begin to think of what purpose it can serve. Your righteousness is your strength—live it out! Your desire for vindication and explanation is your weakness—leave it behind. J: You are more tolerable to speak to than my other pitiful comforters, but your wisdom seems strange. How can God not work strictly according to the principle of retribution and still be counted just?Q: We cannot have all the answers, Job; we don't even know all the questions. Though we may affirm that God is just, justice has not been built into the laws by which nature operates. We do not have enough information to critique God's justice. We must be content to accept his wisdom in our lives. J: But I only wish I knew more of the wisdom of God, so I could affirm his justice!Q: You have made much progress, Job. Until today you have been demanding your “rights”—that God appear and defend his justice; but “rights” too are vanity. Now you seek to learn more of his wisdom—a far more worthy goal, to which God is more likely to respond. And in the distance they both could hear a rumble and see a disturbance on the horizon. They sat transfixed at the approach of the mighty whirlwind. The RP continues to play a role in the theological discussion that persists into the New Testament. Jesus confronts it explicitly on two occasions. In John 9:1-3, the disciples pose the RP question when they ask why a man was born blind. Jesus' answer turns them away from the issue of theodicy (indicated by the question of cause) and toward an expanded theology: Suffering should not be evaluated in terms of its cause (actions in the past) but in terms of its purpose (God's ongoing plan). Thus his reply: “That the work of God might be displayed in his life. ” As in the book of Job, no explanation for suffering is forthcoming, possible, or necessary. More important is the need to trust God's wisdom and to seek out his purpose. In Luke 13:1-5 the issue concerns whether those who had died in recent tragedies should be considered to have deserved their death. Again, Jesus turns the attention away from cause and even states that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between sin and punishment. As an alternative, Jesus tells his audience to view the incident as a warning. Consistent with John 9, he refuses to engage the question of cause and concentrates instead on purpose. Paul weighs in on the RP question in Galatians 6:7: “A man reaps what he sows. ” Here he states the RP proverbially without neutralizing its theological impact. His statement can be interpreted this way based on the fact that his teaching regarding suffering in other passages does not embrace the converse corollary. In fact, the New Testament authors are more inclined to explain the suffering of the righteous as a participation in the sufferings of Christ and therefore a positive experience rather than a punishment of God. Job and Open Theism OPENTHEISMPROPOSESTHAT the future is still unfolding and that God does not know what is going to happen since human choices have yet to unfold and have effect. Some outcomes remain undetermined (i. e., the future is open or unsettled in some details). God is still considered omniscient, but some things remain unknown because they have not yet happened. Scholars who argue for this theological perspective point to passages where God is “sorry” (Gen. 6:6-7), “changes his mind” (Jon. 3:10), or comes to “know something” (Gen. 22:12). Another example would include successful intercession by humans (e. g., Moses, Ex. 32). Some assert that the scenario in Job supports open theism, in part to salvage God's reputation. It seems cruel for God to afflict Job if he already knew that Job would pass the test. 43 God's assent to the test proposed by the Challenger could only be justified if God did not know how it would turn out. This sort of thinking might have merit if
|
it were true that God is testing Job's righteousness. As suggested above, however, I believe that God's policies are being tested rather than Job's righteousness, which is affirmed throughout. If it is correct that God's policies are being tested, then it does not matter whether God knows the outcome or not. The scenario must play out for God's policies to be vindicated. 44Another open theism question could be raised in connection with God's question to the Challenger concerning where he is coming from. As will be defended in the commentary in chapters 1 and 2, Yahweh's question simply opens the conversation by asking the Challenger, “What brings you here?” No occasion is therefore given in the book to suspect that the future remains open and unknown or that God's omniscience has such limitations.
|
Outline of Job I. Prologue (chs. 1-2)II. Dialogues (chs. 3-27)A. Job's Opening Lament (ch. 3)B. Cycle 1: Consolation (chs. 4-14)1. Eliphaz (chs. 4-5)2. Job (chs. 6-7)3. Bildad (ch. 8)4. Job (chs. 9-10)5. Zophar (ch. 11)6. Job (chs. 12-14)C. Cycle 2: The Fate of the Wicked (chs. 15-21)1. Eliphaz (ch. 15)2. Job (chs. 16-17)3. Bildad (ch. 18)4. Job (ch. 19)5. Zophar (ch. 20)6. Job (ch. 21)D. Cycle 3: Specific Accusations (chs. 22-27)1. Eliphaz (ch. 22)2. Job (chs. 23-24)3. Bildad (ch. 25)4. Job (chs. 26-27)III. Interlude: Wisdom Hymn (ch. 28)IV. Discourses (29:1-42:6)A. Discourse 1: Job (chs. 29-31)1. Reminiscence (ch. 29)2. Affliction (ch. 30)3. Oath (ch. 31)B. Discourse 2: Elihu (chs. 32-37)1. Introduction and Theory (chs. 32-33)2. Verdict on Job (ch. 34)3. Offense of Job (ch. 35)4. Closing Statement of Summary (chs. 36-37)C. Discourse 3: God (chs. 38:1-40:2; 40:6-41:34)1. Speech 1 (chs. 38-39)2. Speech 2 (40:1-2; 40:6-41:34)D. Job's Closing Statements (40:3-5; 42:1-6)V. Epilogue (42:7-17)
|
Basic Bibliography on the Book of Job Commentaries Alter, Robert. The Wisdom Books. New York: Norton, 2010. Andersen, Francis I. Job: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, Ill. : Inter Varsity Press, 1976. Clines, David J. A. Job 1-20. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 17. Waco, Tex. : Word, 1989. ________. Job 21-37. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 18A. Nashville: Nelson, 2006. ________. Job 38-42. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 18B. Nashville: Nelson, 2011. Dhorme, Édouard. A Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by Harold Knight, with prefatory notes by H. H. Rowley and preface by Francis I. Anderson. Nashville: Nelson, 1984. Repr. London: T. Nelson, 1967. Translation of Le livre de Job. Paris: Victor Lecoffre, 1926. Gordis, Robert. The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies. Moreshet Series, Studies in Jewish History, Literature and Thought, vol. 2. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1978. Habel, Norman. The Book of Job: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Janzen, J. Gerald. Job. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985. Longman, Tremper, III. Job. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012. Pope, Marvin. Job. 3rd ed. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1973. Rowley, H. H. Job. New Century Bible. Greenwood, S. C. : Attic, 1976. Smick, Elmer B., and Tremper Longman III (reviser). “Job. ” Pages 675-921 in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, rev. ed., vol. 4. Edited by Tremper Longman III. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010. Wilson, Gerald H. Job. New International Biblical Commentary: Old Testament Series 10. Peabody, Mass. : Hendrickson, 2007. Other Books Becton, Randy. Does God Care When We Suffer and Will He Do Anything About It? Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988. Boyd, Gregory A. Is God to Blame? Downers Grove, Ill. : Inter Varsity Press, 2003. Brown, William P. “The Deformation of Character: Job 1-31”; “The Reformation of Character: Job 32-42. ” Pages 50-119 in Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Cheney, Michael. Dust, Wind and Agony: Character, Speech and Genre in Job. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series 36. Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994. Cornelius, Izak. “Job. ” Pages 246-315 in The Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. Vol. 5. Edited by John H. Walton. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Fretheim, Terence E. Creation Untamed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010. Fyall, Robert S. Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job. New Studies in Biblical Theology 12. Downers Grove, Ill. : Inter Varsity Press, 2002. Glatzer, Nahum N. The Dimensions of Job: A Study and Selected Readings. New York: Schocken, 1969. Gordis, Robert. The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965; Phoenix ed. 1978. Holbert, John C. Preaching Job. St. Louis: Chalice, 1999. Janzen, J. Gerald. At the Scent of Water: The Ground of Hope in the Book of Job. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Lo, Alison. Job 28 as Rhetoric: An Analysis of Job 28 in the Context of Job 22-31. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 97. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Mac Leish, Archibald. J. B. : A Play in Verse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958. Magdalene, F. Rachel. On the Scales of Righteousness: Neo-Babylonian Trial Law and the Book of Job. Brown Judaic Studies 348. Providence, R. I. : Brown Judaic Studies, 2007. Newsom, Carol A. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Ticciati, Susannah. Job and the Disruption of Identity. London: T&T Clark/Continuum, 2005.
|
Weiss, Meir. The Story of Job's Beginning—Job 1-2: A Literary Analysis. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983. Westermann, Claus. The Structure of the Book of Job: A Form-Critical Analysis. Translated by Charles A. Muenchow. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. Whitney, K. William. Two Strange Beasts: Leviathan and Behemoth in Second Temple and Early Rabbinic Judaism. Harvard Semitic Monographs 63. Winona Lake, Ind. : Eisenbrauns, 2006. Yancey, Philip. Disappointment with God: Three Questions No One Asks Aloud. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988. ———. Where Is God When It Hurts? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977. Zerafa, Peter Paul. The Wisdom of God in the Book of Job. Studia Universitatis S. Thomae in Urbe 8. Rome: Herder, 1978. Zuck, Roy B., ed. Sitting with Job: Selected Studies on the Book of Job. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992. Articles Albertson, R. G. “Job and Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature. ” Pages 213-30 in Scripture in Context II. Ed. W. W. Hallo, J. C. Moyer, and L. G. Perdue. Winona Lake, Ind. : Eisenbrauns, 1983,Bricker, Daniel P. “Innocent Suffering in Mesopotamia. ” Tyndale Bulletin (2001): 121-42. Dick, M. B. “The Neo-Assyrian Royal Lion Hunt and Yahweh's Answer to Job. ” Journal of Biblical Literature 125 (2006): 243-70. Diewert, David A. “Job 7:12: Yam, Tannin and the Surveillance of Job. ” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 203-15. Gray, John. “The Book of Job in the Context of Near Eastern Literature. ” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 82 (1970): 251-69. Handy, Lowell K. “The Authorization of Divine Power and the Guilt of God in the Book of Job: Useful Ugaritic Parallels. ” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 60 (1993): 107-18. Hoffman, Yair. “Ancient Near Eastern Literary Conventions and the Restoration of the Book of Job. ” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 (1991): 399-411. Irvin, William A. “Job's Redeemer. ” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 217-19. Janzen, J. Gerald. “Another Look at God's Watch Over Job (7:12). ” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 109-16. Mattingly, Gerald L. “The Pious Sufferer: Mesopotamia's Traditional Theodicy and Job's Counselors. ” Pages 305-48 in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III. Eds. W. W. Hallo, B. W. Jones, and G. L. Mattingly (Lewiston, N. Y. : Mellen, 1990): 305-48. Neville, Richard W. “A Reassessment of the Radical Nature of Job's Ethic in Job XXXI 13-15. ” Vetus Testamentum 50 (2003): 181-200. Shields, Martin A. “Malevolent or Mysterious: God's Character in the Prologue of Job. ” Tyndale Bulletin 61 (2010): 255-70. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “The Meaning of the Book of Job. ” Pages 1-37 in The Meaning of the Book of Job and Other Biblical Studies. New York: KTAV, 1980. Von Rad, Gerhard. “Job xxxviii and Ancient Egyptian Wisdom. ” Pages 281-91 in The Problem of the Hexateuch. London: SCM, 1966.
|
Text and Commentary on Job
|
Job 1In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. 2He had seven sons and three daughters, 3and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East. 4His sons used to take turns holding feasts in their homes, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would send and have them purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts. ” This was Job's regular custom. 6One day the angels came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 7The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it. ”8Then the LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. ”9“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10“Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face. ”12The LORD said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger. ”Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD. 13One day when Job's sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, 14a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were grazing nearby, 15and the Sabeans attacked and carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”16While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The fire of God fell from the sky and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”17While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”18While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, “Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, 19when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”20At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship 21and said:“Naked I came from my mother's womb,and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;may the name of the LORD be praised. ”22In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing. Original Meaning Job's Profile (1:1-5)UZ. JOB'SHOMELANDHAS yet to be positively identified. Weiss points out that Uz is a region, not a city, and that “the East” is associated with the Syrian Desert stretching from Mesopotamia to Arabia. 1 In biblical genealogies, Uz is sometimes connected with Aram (Gen. 10:23; 22:21; 1 Chron. 1:17)2 and at other times with Edom (Gen. 36:21, 28; 1 Chron. 1:42; Lam. 4:21; probably Jer. 25:20). Edom has been preferred over Aram, based on Edom's reputation for wisdom and Eliphaz the Temanite's origin from the area of Edom. In an appendix to the book of Job, the LXX locates Edom between Idumea and Arabia; thus, the earliest analysis situates it in the south. 3Regardless of its location, this detail is significant because it indicates that Job is not an Israelite. His non-Israelite status explains the absence of many key theological elements in the book, including law, covenant, temple, and
|
references to Yahweh. 4 Intriguingly, however, the book frequently evidences an Israelite perspective,5 which suggests that the story of the non-Israelite Job has actually been given its literary shape by an Israelite author for an Israelite audience. This secondary context gives the book a voice in the context of Israelite ideas about God and his expectations. 6Job's qualities. Weiss suggests that “blameless” (tam) refers to Job's character and “upright” (yašar) to his actions. 7 When we look at the use of the terminology elsewhere in the book of Job, we find that the opposites of tam are “proclaimed guilty” (ʿqš, 9:20) and “wicked” (rašaʿ, 9:22). This verbal stem of ʿqš occurs only four other times (Prov. 10:9; 28:18, both in contrast to tam; Isa. 59:8; Mic. 3:9, both in contrast to “justice,” mišpaṭ) and specifically refers to something twisted or perverse. The noun rašaʿ is, in contrast, common (26x in Job), and refers generally to the wicked. The word tam denotes integrity and the resulting absence of blame or guilt. Tam is an appropriate description for people characterized by integrity when measured by general human standards. Note, for example, Abimelech, who asserts that he took Sarah in integrity of heart (NIV: “with a clear conscience” Gen. 20:5), and that God confirmed this assessment (20:6). Second, Job is identified as “upright” (yašar), a term commonly used to describe people who behave according to God's expectations—specifically, kings faithful to Yahweh (e. g., Joash, 2 Chron. 24:2). An upright person gains God's favor (Deut. 6:18). God himself is upright (Deut. 32:4), and he made humankind upright (Eccl. 7:29), but people have gone in search of schemes. The Israelites each did what was (up)right in their own eyes (Judg. 17:6; 21:25) because they had no king and they were departing from faithfulness to God. Tam and yašar are desirable accolades, but they are achievable for humans who seek steadfastly to order their ways according to customary conceptions of godliness. But these terms do not describe people who live lives of sinless perfection; rather, they describe those who have found favor in the eyes of God and other humans (cf. Prov. 3:4). Job is also described as one who “fears God” (ʾelohim). As we would expect in Job, the author does not identify him as one who “fears Yahweh” specifically. We can again turn to the description of the non-Israelite Abimelech and his people and the premature assessment made of them by Abraham (Gen 20:11). 8 In common Old Testament usage, to fear the Lord/God is to take God seriously. That can mean different things depending on what one knows of God. For the sailors in Jonah, fearing the Lord entailed a different response than the Israelites, who “feared the LORD” in response to the covenant. In a non-Israelite context, fearing God could refer to being ritually or ethically conscientious, and the context of Job requires nothing more than this definition. In sum, Job is a paragon of devotion and integrity. Job's possessions and status. In verses 2 and 3 Job's prosperity is described in terms of his family and his possessions. The numbers all give indication of representing idealizations or stereotypes, but this is no evidence that they are contrived. Truth is stranger than fiction. Nevertheless, as suggested in the introduction, the book as wisdom literature would be expected to be the result of literary shaping. Everything about Job is ideal, which has the purpose of portraying him as the ultimate example of a person who is beyond reproach and who has achieved success by the highest standards. Job's piety. A number of questions emerge from the short vignette in verses 4-6. One might first question why these feasts are the setting for the potential offense of cursing God. Note that these are not cultic feasts because the word used here usually denotes special celebratory occasions; other terminology designates a cultic feast. From a literary standpoint these feasts have significance because they provide the setting in which Job's sons and daughters eventually meet their demise (1:18-19). This group setting might seem unnecessary at first glance since Job expresses his concern that they may have cursed God “in their hearts. ” Although this phrase often refers to the private thoughts of an individual, when a group of people are part of the scene, it can refer to corporate thinking shared confidentially (cf. Deut. 8:17; 18:21; Ps. 78:18). Tangentially, since just such a feast was taking place when Job's family was destroyed, one might ask whether their behavior at the feast may have somehow brought this judgment on them (note that Bildad suggests exactly that in 8:4). In such a case, the death of his family could be interpreted by observers not as action against Job, but as action against his children. But the information here about Job's scrupulous purifying rituals argue against that suggestion.
|
Second, why does Job even imagine that his family might curse God in their private conversations at these feasts? Again, a first glance can be misleading. It would appear that this is an extreme offense that would be unlikely of this pious family, where we might expect an illustration that shows more subtlety. But that initial impression evaporates under scrutiny. Strange as it may seem, the word translated “cursed” is the normal Hebrew word for “bless” (barak). The general consensus among interpreters is that the use of the opposite word is euphemistic so that the uncomfortable concept of cursing God is circumnavigated. 9 This unusual interplay between cursing and blessing becomes significant in the early sections of this book. In 1:11 (also 2:5) the Challenger suggests that Job will “bless” (= “curse”) God to his face (in contrast to the fears Job had that his children might bless/curse God in their hearts). Instead, Job truly does “bless” God (1:21, same verb). Job's wife urges him to “bless” (= “curse”) God blatantly and die (2:9). Job does not respond with blessing God after the second round, but neither does he curse God. Instead, he curses the day of his birth. 10Beyond this specific use of the terms in establishing a literary motif, we must also consider the underlying narrative framework. In the narrative God has blessed Job with children and possessions (1:10). But on the larger scale one could also say that God has orally blessed Job by praising him to the Challenger (sometimes blessing is accomplished by praise). As it turns out, the very nature of that oral blessing becomes a curse as it is made the basis for the challenge that leads to the loss of the material blessing. Eventually God restores and multiplies the material blessing (42:12). So the curse/bless antithesis stands as a significant motif in the book. Yet as important as this motif is, it fails to answer the question that we are pursuing. The next level of investigation concerns what sort of statement would constitute “cursing God. ” In the Old Testament the matter of cursing (qll) God is discussed explicitly in Leviticus 24:10-16 (see also the passing reference in Ex. 22:28 [27] and Isa. 8:21). 11 The offense is extreme (it carries the death penalty) and could be committed in a wide variety of ways. Cursing God could involve using God's name in a frivolous oath,12 using God's name along with illicit words of power (e. g., hex),13 using words of power against God, or speaking in a denigrating, contemptuous, or slanderous way about God—basically insulting God. 14 The last is the most likely in this context as most befitting the situation. We can identify some examples of this offense by moving beyond the actual occurrence of the term “curse” to exploring some of the offensive words people speak against God “in their hearts” in other passages: taking credit for what God has done (cf. Deut. 8:17) misjudging God's motives (Deut. 9:4) thinking that God will not act (Deut. 29:19 [18]; Isa. 47:8; Zeph. 1:12) expressing one's ambitions against God (Isa. 14:13) expressing one's arrogance (Isa. 47:10) stating that there is no God (Pss. 14:1; 53:1)These examples all hold God in contempt by stating implicitly or explicitly that he is powerless to act, that God is corrupt in his actions or motives, that God has needs, or that God can be manipulated. These sorts of claims would constitute cursing God as they make God to be less than God. We thus discover that “cursing God” may not be as blatant and obvious an offense as first thought. The way Job might curse God in response to his suffering would be to show contempt for God by suggesting that God is corrupt, irrational, or capricious. But it is unlikely that this is how his sons and daughters might curse God. They might be more inclined in their revelry to think that their success has been achieved by their own hand and so fail to give God credit for the blessings they enjoy. Other possibilities exist, and we need not try to resolve this question, but it is important to realize the range of statements that could conceivably be considered “cursing God. ”Nothing in the general wording here would indicate specifically either an Israelite or ancient Near Eastern way of thinking. Blasphemy is a recognized offense in either cultural setting. “Sins of the tongue” in Akkadian texts included making frivolous oaths and blasphemy (Akkad. šillatu). 15 The same verb could also be used of slander, insult, and insolence—in short, a wide variety of offensive speech. 16 It was considered a serious offense and sometimes identified as a possible cause of illness in medical diagnostic texts. 17With this information about the feast setting and the broad scope of what could entail “cursing God,” we are finally
|
in a position to ask and address the most important third question: Why does the author choose this sort of example to illustrate Job's piety? It is true that it offers a literary connection both to the death of his family (at such a feast) and to the option held out to Job to curse God. Perhaps that is sufficient reason, but it remains intriguing that the example of Job's blamelessness is not chosen from some of the areas that we might expect: e. g., how he used his wealth, how he protected the vulnerable classes, how he treated with respect those under his authority, or how he maintained ethical propriety. The text does not indicate that he loved God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength. The example that the book gives is ritual in nature. Perhaps the intention is merely to indicate that among all of his other qualities, Job did not neglect ritual observance. But if that were the case, we would expect an illustration that focused on a minor point of ritual concerning a gray area of expectation. At first sight, “cursing God” seems the most blatant of acts, but as we have seen in the above study, a wide variety of statements could be so construed. Could someone be accused of “cursing God” when they had no such intention at all? How sensitive will God be about categorizing what someone has said as “cursing God”? When we interact with someone whom we know to be sensitive, we will be careful about what we say. This is especially so if that person has some authority or power over us. We use the expression “walking on eggshells” to express how we seek to avoid offense with such people—perhaps a boss who is insecure. The question this example of Job's ritual fastidiousness raises is, “What does it say about Job's concept of God?” The example is not used to show what Job thought about his children; it is brought out to pose a question concerning what he thought about God. Job's repeated rituals do not suggest that he considered his children to be closet apostates hurling drunken insults heavenward. Instead, he considered that anytime such revelry occurred, the possibility existed that unguarded statements could be made that deity would take offense at despite the innocent intentions of the speaker. In the ancient world outside of Israel the gods were considered to be unrealistic and almost childish in taking offense. For example, a Neo-Assyrian prayer expresses an individual's confusion over all that is going wrong in the author's life. 18 He begins listing all the unintentional ways that he might have offended some deity or other: Did he accidentally step on sacred space of some known or unknown god? Or did he perhaps eat some food forbidden by a known or unknown god? Is Job perhaps thinking of God in these terms?In the ancient world, religious duty was more concerned with ritual than with ethics. In this view one could not really know what would please the gods, so people gave them gifts to keep them happy. This appeasement mentality carried with it the idea that deity was inclined toward irrational behavior. The gods had needs, and one tried to keep the gods content by meeting those needs (ritually). 19 Ethical behavior was not neglected, but it was not among the primary religious responsibilities. This question is important here because the chosen example clouds the issue of whether Job's behavior demonstrates an appeasement mentality toward an overly sensitive deity. In this way of thinking, God might suddenly get upset about someone committing some ritual offense in ignorance. The gods were often suspected of taking offense where none was intended. When Job begins to suffer, we see that he does consider that his troubles might be due to an overly attentive deity (7:17-21). We can see, then, that the description of Job leaves no doubt that he is righteous. But the chosen example does not clarify his motives for being righteous and leaves unresolved what his picture of God is. Once we see the issue in this light, we can see how these two verses lead directly to the challenge posed by the Challenger, which was precisely on that point. If Job is engaged in the appeasement mentality of the Great Symbiosis, then it would be legitimate to question whether “Job serves God for nothing. ” If sacrilege can be inadvertent and if ritual is a shot in the dark in trying to appease any inadvertent word that deity may have taken offense at, deity has no integrity and the Great Symbiosis is the result. No motivation remains for righteousness except to reap benefits from a patronized god. It is Job's fastidious ritual conduct that gives the opportunity for the question to be raised by the Challenger. We will find as we continue our analysis of this book that the Challenger's question has indeed identified a fundamental issue. It is not just how we act that is important; it is why we act that way. And our motives can only be sorted out in relationship to our concept of God and what we believe drives his policies on earth. The stage is set for the Challenger to raise the issue of Job's motives and through them to raise questions about God's policies. First Conversation (1:6-12)
|
SONSOFGOD. THIS phrase (bene ʾelohim) does not occur often in Scripture (Gen. 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7),20 but our understanding can be augmented by usage outside of the Old Testament (mostly the Ugaritic texts). 21 The designation relates to the idea of a divine council, where “the sons of God” are the functionaries who make up the council. This divine council meets to give reports and make decisions; it is where the business of heaven is done. In the ancient Near Eastern polytheistic cultures, this council was populated by the chief gods. Divine authority was distributed among these gods, and each had their area of jurisdiction. In Old Testament monotheism this concept is revised but not eliminated. It is true that in biblical theology Yahweh needs no advice or consultants (Isa. 40:13-14), but it is his prerogative to discuss his plans with others as he wills and to delegate responsibility at his discretion. It is common today for the use of the divine plurals in Genesis 1:26; 3:22; and 11:7 to be explained as indicating involvement of the council. 22 Isaiah 6:8 also presents a view of the divine council in session. The most obvious passage portraying the divine council at work is 1 Kings 22. In these contexts, the council is not populated by other gods, but by the next lower tier of heavenly functionaries. We ought not call them “angels” because angels have a messenger function, not an administrative function. These administrative functionaries possess no independent divine authority, but they have delegated roles in the administration of Yahweh's authority. 23 In Psalm 82 the assembly is where God presides, and it is made up of ʾelohim (Ps. 82:1), but the psalmist makes clear that these ʾelohim are the “sons of the Most High” (bene ʿelyon, 82:6). Other responsibilities of these sons of God apparently include representing the nations (Deut. 32:8). 24On the basis of this biblical and ancient Near Eastern background, we can conclude that Job 1 features a gathering of the divine council as the sons of God come together to give their reports and to do the work of heaven. Whether the conversation that follows with the Challenger takes place in session or not is of little concern, but the language suggests that he has come to give a report when Yahweh is holding open court. The thrust of the question is “What brings you here”? (2:2). 25The Challenger (haśśaṭan). 26 Because the Challenger comes among the sons of God, there has been some discussion as to whether he comes as a full-fledged member or as an interlocutor crashing the meeting. 27 The former would be supported by the casual way in which Yahweh engages him in conversation, asking from where he has come; God's question is an invitation to report, which suggests the Challenger has come to give just such a report. The verb that communicates the reason for his presence is also applied to the sons of God (“present themselves,” Heb. hityaṣṣeb), which suggests that he is there in an official capacity, as courtier. We need not infer from Yahweh's question that he is ignorant of what the Challenger's activities have been; it is simply a prompt to report. So what can be said about this Challenger? The Hebrew word śaṭan has traditionally been transliterated with capitalization as the proper name “Satan”; most translations follow tradition. This decision, in turn, leads casual readers to associate this Challenger with the devil, named as Satan in the New Testament. This conclusion is not necessarily valid and must be investigated closely. The most important initial observation is that every time this word occurs in Job, it is preceded by the definite article (haśśaṭan). This is strong evidence that śaṭan is not a personal name, because Hebrew does not put a definite article in front of personal names. We might alternatively understand the word to indicate the office or function of the individual so designated. Therefore, we must conclude that the individual in Job 1-2 (and Zech. 3:1-2, where the article is also used) should be identified as “the Challenger” (description of function) rather than as “Satan” (proper name). 28 P. L. Day has demonstrated that the clear shift to using Satan as a proper name does not occur until the second century BC. 29Consequently, we must next consider what this designation conveys about the role of the Challenger. In the Old Testament, the word is used both as a verb and a noun. As a verb, it means generally “to oppose as an adversary” or “to accuse. ”30 As a noun, it can be applied to a human being, thus designating him a challenger. 31 Finally, in the category of most interest to this study, the noun is applied to celestial beings. 32 This should lead us to revisit an assumption that is often carried blindly into the Old Testament, namely, that the technical term always applies to the same supernatural being, a single śaṭan. Such an assumption is easily refuted by the fact that Numbers 22:22 and 32 refer to the angel of the Lord serving as a śaṭan. So unless we posit that the Challenger in Job is the angel of the Lord, we must conclude that a variety of beings can serve this function. This means that the appearance of
|
an individual with this function does not give us a specific identification of the individual. 33Job 1:6 would lead us to understand that a certain divine being whose precise identity is unimportant and who has the current and perhaps temporary status of Challenger is being introduced into the narrative. This interpretation is preferable because it is consistent with known Israelite (and Mesopotamian) legal practice, in that “Challenger” was a legal status that various people temporarily acquired in the appropriate circumstances, as opposed to a post or office. 34I conclude from the above description of this function that śaṭan refers to one who challenges. He might challenge someone by accusing them of a perceived wrongdoing. Alternatively, he might challenge as an adversary in court, in politics, or on the field of battle; he could challenge someone's status or someone's policies. Such a challenge could be made legitimately or presumptuously, with positive or negative intent, and it could be designed to preserve a system through accountability or to destabilize a kingdom. Consequently, not only must we identify śaṭan here as a functional designation, we must now consider the possibility that, as a function, it is not intrinsically evil. 35 If we had no name for this individual (which, of course, we do not) and had to build his profile from the text of Job alone, what conclusions could we draw? It should be noted that the Challenger does not initiate the discussion about Job; he merely offers an alternative explanation of Job's righteous behavior. Though interpreters commonly portray the Challenger as one who seeks out human failings,36 God's policies are the true focus of the challenge. 37 Job's character is only the test case. In this case, the Challenger serves as a “watchdog agency,” meant to raise questions of accountability. The challenges issued are intended to promote the general good by putting potentially questionable policies and decisions under scrutiny. The Challenger, therefore, does not necessarily imply some flaw in God or in Job. Some infer that the Challenger relishes the opportunity to strike at Job. The text does not attribute to God or to the Challenger any personal emotional response to Job's tragedy; God carries more responsibility for striking Job than the Challenger (implied in 1:12 and 2:3),38 and both lack any sympathetic response. It is arbitrary, therefore, to assume that the Challenger enjoys Job's suffering, while God sadly endures it. There is no expression of glee; there is no diabolical chuckle. Nothing personal, Job ... there is a major philosophical issue on the line that supersedes individual circumstances. Weiss concludes that nothing intrinsically evil emerges in the author's portrayal of the Challenger in Job. Certainly what he does has negative consequences for Job, a righteous man, but the text makes it clear that God is at least equally responsible for what happens to Job, thus freeing the actions from implicit evil. 39 There is no tempting, corrupting, depraving, or possessing. The result of this profile is that we are not in a position to claim that the Challenger in Job should be identified with Satan as we know him in the New Testament. One cannot make the claim that they act the same way. In fact, there is little if any overlap between their two profiles. This does not prove that they are not the same individual; it merely reduces (if not eliminates) the basis for claiming that they must be equated. The profile of the Hebrew śaṭan in the book of Job does not answer to the same description as the Christian view of Satan in the New Testament. While the pictures are not contradictory, and they may even be complementary, we cannot consider them homogeneous. Accolade. Yahweh praises Job (1:8), using the same language that the narrator has used in 1:1; everyone agrees that Job's conduct is impeccable. Furthermore, he prefaces his remarks with the assessment that Job stands as the most outstanding example of this righteous behavior among people on earth, a point we will explore further in Bridging Contexts. Most curious, however, is that Yahweh does not mention Job's ritual routines detailed in 1:5. Challenge. We have suggested above that the challenge posed is not against Job per se, but against God's policies. In that vein, the existence of disinterested righteousness and the effect of a reward system on a person's motives are both legitimate issues. God does not scoff at the challenge or discount the legitimacy of the question. The Challenger is questioning God's blueprint for divine-human relations—the validity of a moral order in which the righteous unfailingly prosper, or what we have called the Retribution Principle (RP). The test of true righteousness would be fear of God without the promise of reward or the threat of punishment. 40 The Challenger has no evidence for accusing Job of acting righteously only for reward. His point is that, given the system that Yahweh has set up, one cannot tell (notice all the second person subjects in 1:10, which show that God's policies are the target
|
of accusations). Prospering the righteous, in the Challenger's view, is a questionable policy because it fosters corrupt motives. By pointing out all that Yahweh has done to bless and prosper Job, he raises the point that Job's motives are open to question: Is he truly righteous or just acting in ways that will gain him benefits?As we have mentioned in the discussion of Job's fastidious ritual customs, not only is Job's motivation for righteous behavior subject to investigation, but his concept of God is open to question as well. The RP exposes God to criticism in that it could lead people to think that the world is founded on justice, that they can therefore expect predicted results to their behavior, and that when they experience anomalous or conflicting results, God's character may be misconstrued and his reputation compromised. It is difficult to fault the logic of this challenge. In fact, we find that Job does draw false conclusions about God's character and the nature of his operations of the world. God recognizes the legitimacy of the challenge and authorizes action against Job. It is important for God to clarify his character and the way he runs the world. Curse/bless. In 1:11, as in 1:5, the word “bless” (barak) is again used euphemistically for “curse. ” In contrast to Job's sons and daughters, who might curse God privately, the Challenger expresses his pessimistic assessment that Job will curse God “to his face. ” The phrase used here typically refers to something that is done in the presence of another—not behind their back, covertly, privately or confidentially. 41 In contrast to the range of possibilities for Job's children (from subtle to blatant, inadvertent to rebellious contempt), this anticipated act of Job would be unambiguous and forthright. It must be emphasized that the Challenger has no foreknowledge and can have no certainty. His claim stems not from some identified flaw in Job, but from his experience with human nature. He has no specific evidence that would impugn Job's character, though perhaps Job's ritual customs betray some crack in the façade. If he really had any evidence, the whole challenge would be invalid and fruitless. The Challenger's confidence is that God's policy is misguided and ill-advised, not wicked or corrupt. His confidence is that Job's motives are suspect and that Job's concept of God is vulnerable. There is no reason to believe that he takes delight in Job's ruin. If Job is as righteous as he appears, the Challenger is wrong, in which case the prosperity doesn't matter anyway. If righteousness is all that Job ultimately values, that cannot be taken away from him. As a side note, we must remember that this is a thought experiment in a literary scenario. It is pointless to wring our hands over the sad fate of Job's innocent family, for the challenge does not focus on his family and their innocence, but on God's work in the world. The children simply represent the blessing of God, like Job's cattle. This is not to suggest they are no better than cattle; rather, it warns us that we are losing our way if we decide to advocate their cause and press a complaint against God on their behalf. Their fate is part of the challenge to God's policies, but not its focus. Devastation of Job (1:13-22)SABEANSANDCHALDEANS,FIREof God and mighty wind. We can see that the Challenger uses all the resources at God's disposal—human foes, divine judgment from heaven, and “natural” disaster. These calamities occur in rapid succession, which thus dramatizes the literary scenario. The identification of the human foes is problematic. Verse 15 is usually translated as a reference to the Sabeans, though the lead consonant is šin, not sin; consequently, the raiders are from Sheba. In biblical and other literature from the ancient world, there was a Sheba in the south (same spelling; vicinity of modern Yemen, from where the Queen of Sheba traveled to learn of Solomon), but some have suggested a northern Sheba in the region of Edom. This suggestion is probable, given the towns listed in connection with Sheba and the improbability of raiders coming from a thousand miles away. 42The Chaldeans (Heb. kaśdim) represent a different problem. In Jeremiah and Ezekiel, they inhabit Babylonia and in fact are the ethnic group from which the Babylonian rulers, such as Nebuchadnezzar, are derived. These Chaldeans first appear in ninth-century Assyrian inscriptions. 43 Some have offered a second millennium identification of kaśdim in relationship to keśed in the area of Aram Naharaim among Abraham's relatives (Gen. 22:22),44 but this seems too distant from Job's home territory. As to the reference to divine judgment, the exact construction “fire of God” appears only in this passage. Other references to God sending fire from heaven make it clear that these are viewed as direct acts of judgment (Sodom, Gen. 19:24; Aaron's sons, Lev. 10:2; rebellious Israelites, Num. 11:1; 16:35; and king's messengers sent to take Elijah captive, 2 Kings 1:12).
|
Finally, a “mighty wind” destroys the house where Job's children had gathered and causes their death (1:19). Such destructive wind is elsewhere referred to in 1 Kings 19:11. Though nothing in the ancient world was perceived as “natural” (notice Hos. 13:15; Jon. 4:8), this mighty wind would be a meteorological phenomenon, which is not necessarily the case for the “fire of God. ” The point is that, even though all of these disasters come from the hand of God (notice Job 2:3), they fit into different categories—another way of showing the totality of the devastation. One additional observation is that an Israelite audience would readily recognize all the disasters that overtake Job because they are among those delineated in the covenant curses for disobedience (Deut. 28:31-35). 45 This recognition would heighten the poignancy for the Israelite reader and would also evoke further connections with retribution theology—here on the corporate level. Job's response. Job's initial response reflects the normal customs of mourning (tearing one's robe and shaving one's head, 1:20). Falling to the ground prostrate, however, is nowhere else included in mourning activities (for the closest, see 2 Sam. 1:2). Perhaps that is why the NIV has chosen to render the verb as “worship. ” When an act of worship is in view, however, the text generally specifies bowing down “before the LORD. ” The fact that Job does not address God in the succeeding lines argues against taking his prostration as an act of worship. Specifically, the verb refers to an act of prostration that may or may not be associated with worship; as often as not, someone is prostrating oneself before someone of authority or higher rank. 46 Nevertheless, in any of these situations, the context typically specifies a person or group before whom one prostrates oneself. If this gesture does not signify mourning, deference, or worship, what are other alternatives?We can gain some insight into Job's action from four other passages that use this verb (ḥawah) without designating an object. Genesis 47:31 and 1 Kings 1:47 are deathbed scenes (Jacob and David respectively), in which the subjects realize and acknowledge a significant act of God. Exodus 4:31 and 12:27 are scenes in which the Israelites have heard that God intends to deliver them from Egypt. None of these four contexts indicate that the subjects prostrate themselves before the Lord or engage in acts of worship. In each one, the prostration is a response to something remarkable that God has done and represents acknowledgment and acceptance. In the same way, Job acknowledges by his prostration that God has performed a remarkable act, and Job accepts it as such; he abases himself in response to the great power that God has demonstrated. Presumably from his prostrate position, he utters his acceptance of God's actions. By ending his short speech with the invocation of blessing on the name of Yahweh, he has done exactly what the Challenger said he would and the exact opposite. The Challenger said he would “bless” (= euphemism for “curse”) God to his face. Job does “bless” God to his face, but here, we must conclude, with no euphemistic connotation. Nevertheless, the multivalence and thus ambiguity of the term “bless” in these chapters keeps the reader alert to potential subtle nuances. 47The narrator concludes that Job does not attribute wrongdoing to God. The Hebrew word translated “wrongdoing” (tiplah) is used only two other times. In Job 24:12, we read that God had not held anyone accountable in that context of persecution. Jeremiah 23:13 uses it to refer to a travesty—prophets of Baal leading the Israelites astray. With so few uses of this word, certainty concerning its meaning is not possible, but the word appears in contexts where a person should be held accountable for wrongdoing. When this word is used of Job's response, it indicates that Job is not calling God to accountability; this accords with Job's words in verse 21: Whether God gives or takes away, he should be praised—God owes us nothing. This is not Job's final posture, but his reflection at this stage; we will later see that Job does call God to account. We will also see that all experiences cannot be accounted for as reflecting God's giving or taking away—that is too simplistic. Bridging Contexts THE BRIDGING CONTEXTSSECTIONS of this commentary series have three specific functions. The first task is to discuss how the section under consideration fits into the argument of the book as a whole—that is, the rhetorical strategy. As the rhetorical strategy unfolds, it also leads to the message of the book—in this case, the answers that it offers regarding God's policies in this world and a proposed perspective on suffering. So, for example, below we will discuss the role of the prologue. Second, in this section we can discuss the theological issues that arise in the book (whether or not the book intends to teach on that subject). So, for example, we will encounter material in Job that will lead us to examine theological concepts of creation or afterlife. We will try to address these issues throughout each unit.
|
Third, and most important, the Bridging Contexts section serves to identify the message that comprises the authoritative teaching of the text. Here, we would normally seek to identify the teaching of the book that applies to all audiences throughout time. This is problematic in Job because the book does not carry such a teaching in all its passages. Both Job and his friends are groping for answers and coming up short. In many of the sections of the book, there is no authoritative message, for eventually the book will reject the positions taken by the parties whose words have been offered. Consequently, we will often have to omit this discussion. Rhetorical Strategy48PURPOSEOFPROLOGUE. THE scene in heaven sets up a number of important issues in the book. First, it clearly indicates that Job is indeed innocent of wrongdoing. 49 This immediately eliminates the usual answers offered in the ancient Near East, in which there really is an offense of which the sufferer was unaware, or that God is simply capricious. This cleans the slate of tradition to make room for new explanations. A second important point is that by acclaiming Job's righteousness from the beginning, the author makes clear, as we have noted, that Job is not on trial. This feature allows the book to focus on God's policy regarding the treatment of the righteous. Notice in the process that the book thus tackles the more difficult side of the retribution equation, for it is much easier to discuss why the wicked prosper. By indicating that there is no one on earth like Job, the author also establishes the stark contrast between the height of his stature and the depth of his fall. Third, the prologue reveals important information that is crucial to our understanding of the book. Because the conversation in heaven is never revealed to Job or his friends, they understandably misjudge precisely what is at stake. This hidden information is especially poignant because, as Job argues his case before God, he believes that he can “win” if he can force God into court to account for himself, to give an explanation for his actions. In reality, Job has nothing to win because he is not on trial. If, however, God were to give Job an explanation for his suffering—reasons why he acted the way that he did in the prologue—Job's challenge to God's policies (that it is bad policy for righteous people to suffer, see Introduction, p. 23) would be validated. In other words, if Job “wins” the case that he thinks he is in, God loses the case that the prologue sets up. If all suffering can be explained by the RP and the world operates on the foundation of God's justice, then it is bad policy or flawed execution when righteous people suffer. Finally, the scene in heaven shows that, despite the role of the Challenger, God both initiated the discussion and approved the course of action. 50 This again avoids the easy solution that insulates God by inserting an independently wicked intermediary power. The book would be toothless without this introduction; it would be reduced to philosophical speculation, unable to rise above its contemporaries. In the same way, to view the prologue as suggesting that the book is the story of how a good man suffered because of a bet between God and Satan misses the point entirely. 51Theological Issues THEGODJOBFEARS. 52 The primary names used for God in the book of Job are El,53Eloah,54Elohim,55 and Shaddai. 56 The characters in the book leave no room for the distribution of divine powers among a variety of entities, though the speakers refer to other known divine entities in a variety of places. 57 These indicate that Job inhabits the world of the ancient Near East, with all its mythologies, but he does not share the polytheistic worldview common to the region. Neither Job nor his friends specifically discuss Yahweh in their speeches to one another. 58 What is the significance of this? We have noted that Job is a paradox. The region of his home and the practices of his family clearly show his setting to be non-Israelite. This non-Israelite setting would find support in the use of divine names other than Yahweh. Yet, at the same time, Job is notably Israelite-like in his beliefs (see Introduction, p. 38). With the Prologue and Epilogue featuring Yahweh, an additional Israelite component is recognizable, but there is no attempt to insert Yahweh throughout the work. Is Job being assessed in Israelite or non-Israelite terms? Again, there is a paradox that creates some tension in the book: a non-Israelite polytheist could theoretically be described using the terms applied to Job by Yahweh (“blameless,” “upright,” “fearing God,” “turning away from evil”), but it would be highly unusual for such a one to have risen above the Great Symbiosis (see explanation on p. 33-38), as must be the case if God's policies are to be vindicated. This paradox also extends to the way that the divine names are used in the book. Loyalty to Yahweh (as in the
|
covenant) is not the issue under discussion; yet the divine epithets (as opposed to specific names of other gods) in the book allow no hint that Job worships another god. He uses all legitimate epithets for Israel's God. One of the issues particularly at stake in the book is whether Job's concept of God accords with the ancient Near Eastern models or with the ideal Israelite models. The ambiguity inherent in the use of divine names allows this tension to extend throughout the book. The Challenger (haśśaṭan). In the Original Meaning section, we adopted the following conclusions about the Challenger: He is one of the “sons of God” (a member of the divine council). He serves as a policy watchdog. He uses the ambiguity of Job's motives and concept of God to challenge God's policies. He does not act independently. He is not inherently evil. He cannot confidently be identified with Satan in the New Testament. In this section, then, we must discuss where this leaves us on two counts. (1) What is the theology surrounding the Challenger in the larger Old Testament context? (2) Does our doctrine of Satan need modification?As indicated earlier, several Old Testament passages outside of Job use the noun śaṭan to refer to nonhuman beings, including Zechariah 3:1-2 and 1 Chronicles 21:1. 59 As in Job, Zechariah 3 also features the definite article; here the Challenger questions Joshua's right to play the role he has been given because he is covered with the stains of his and his people's guilt. 60 God responds by purifying him for the task. In Job, the policy of rewarding the righteous is questioned; in Zechariah, the policy of forgiveness and restoration is questioned. 61In 1 Chronicles 21 there is no definite article. This could mean that śaṭan is being used as a personal name, but it also could mean that it is simply indefinite (i. e., a śaṭan). 62 The role of the śaṭan here is somewhat different because the śaṭan is not challenging God's policies; rather, he is inciting David to take a census. In Job and Zechariah, the śaṭan acts in relation to God by challenging God's policies. In Chronicles (but also in Numbers) the ≈õa·π≠an functions in relation to humans. As we consider 1 Chronicles 21, it is important to note that the parallel passage in 2 Samuel 24 gives no role to śaṭan; there the anger of God incites David to take a census. 63 This falls short of suggesting that God initiated the census; the passage makes no statement about agency. In one possible scenario, God's anger against Israel would have been evidenced in some fashion (cf., e. g., 2 Sam. 21:1), and David may have been seeking to appease that anger by means of a census (which would eventuate in a head tax paid to the temple, “buying off” God, as it were). God takes offense at this pagan view of appeasement, and the subsequent plague is a further expression of his anger—both the original anger toward Israel and the unacceptable solution attempted by David. 64 The passage does not require that David's sin is the only object of punishment. In this interpretation of the Chronicles passage, then, the role attributed to śaṭan is not filled by God in the 2 Samuel 24 account. Rather, in Samuel the role is left unmentioned. Satan is now posited by the Chronicler as the intermediary responsible for David's decision to pursue the course of action he chose. The anger of the Lord created the circumstance; śaṭan is responsible for instigating the decision. In this way, his role is similar to that of the unnamed spirit in 1 Kings 22:19-23. It is interesting to note that in the Kings passage, though the course of action instigated by the spirit is punishable, the action is not urged to defy God; it is in fact approved by him. How shall we view Chronicles' presentation of śaṭan as one who actively instigates the punishable behavior of human beings?65 We should first notice that this is not the only passage where the anger of the Lord leads to the involvement of a śaṭan. First Kings 11:9-14 shows the Lord's raising up Hadad the Edomite as a human śaṭan against Solomon, when God becomes angry with him. Likewise, the angel of the Lord functions as śaṭan against Balaam, when the Lord becomes angry with him (Num 22:22). The pattern can now be seen as follows:
|
Passage Agent of God's anger Object of God's anger Result of God's anger1 Kings 11Hadad the Edomite (a śaṭan)Solomon Rebellion Num. 22Angel of the Lord (a śaṭan)Balaam Near execution1 Kings 22Unnamed spirit working through false prophets Ahab Death in battle2 Sam. 24/1 Chron. 21a śaṭan working through David Israel Plague The anger of the Lord is explicitly stated in each of these passages, with the exception of 1 Kings 22, though there the entire sequence of narratives has been emphasizing God's displeasure with Ahab. It is also noteworthy that, with the exception of 1 Kings 11, the immediate passage does not clarify what has caused God's anger. The agents all function in the same way: They are instruments of God's punishment. In 1 Kings 11, the agent is human and described as a śaṭan; in Numbers 22 the agent is supernatural and likewise described as a śaṭan. The supernatural agent in the other two passages works indirectly by affecting a human agent who unwittingly initiates the punishment. We can observe here the parallel roles played by the unnamed spirit in 1 Kings 22 and the unnamed śaṭan in 1 Chronicles 21; in each case, the action instigated by the agent is something in itself displeasing to God (false prophecy and the census). Though the profiles in Job/Zechariah and Chronicles may differ from one another, for our purposes it is important to note how different both profiles are from that of the New Testament Satan. The New Testament profile reflects the development of thought that took place throughout the intertestamental period. J. B. Russell summarizes the development:Satan, Azazel, Belial, and Mastema were none of them in their origins a principle of evil, but in the apocalyptic literature they converge in that direction. What is important is the development of the concept of the principle of evil, with which the name of Satan was linked more closely than any other. 66Even though we do not view the literature of this period as inspired, it evidences some of the progression in theological thinking that is later affirmed by the New Testament. H. Ringgren summarizes those features as follows:In the pseudepigraphic literature—and therefore primarily in the realm of apocalyptic—the development continues. As author and representative of evil we find here a prince of the evil spirits, who bears various names: Satan, Mastema (only in the Book of Jubilees), Belial or Beliar (“worthlessness”; primarily in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Qumran documents), and, in Greek, diabolos (“slanderer”). He, together with his angels and powers, constitutes the realm of evil, and seeks to lead men to destruction and ruin. It was he who tempted the first human beings to sin; it was he who aided the Egyptians before and during the exodus of the Israelites; it is he who causes all evil and all sins. Through him death entered the world (Wisd. Sol. 2:24). He is the prince of lawlessness, the ruler of this world (Mart. Isa. 2. 4); he stands in complete antithesis to God. At the end of the world, he will be conquered, bound, and destroyed by God. 67By the New Testament, much of this has been accumulated into the profile of the being called Satan, the diabolical enemy leading the forces of evil. The New Testament Devil is a tempter, a liar, a murderer, the cause of death, sorcery, and idolatry; he hurts people
|
physically, and he blocks and obstructs the teaching of the Kingdom of God wherever he can, assaulting us, possessing us spiritually, and tempting us to sin. In all this he is the enemy of the Kingdom of God. 68This sinister being has been viewed in many different ways throughout history. In some Jewish writings, he is the personification of the evil impulse in all of us. The more dualistic offshoots of Christianity (e. g., Manichaeism) understood him as the hypostasis of the dark side of God. Another variation, perhaps the most popular view in contemporary Christianity, posits him as the apotheosis of evil from within the world of demons. 69 This latter profile portrays Satan as a fallen angel. The Old Testament passages that mention śaṭan (discussed above) do not portray him as a fallen being (though neither do they explicitly deny his fallenness). Two significant passages in the Old Testament that have been traditionally associated with the fall of Satan in Christian doctrine: Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-19. 70 If Satan is truly a fallen being, this fact would significantly expand the possibilities for the interpretation of the Challenger in Job. Consequently, we must turn our attention to the tradition of the fall of Satan in these two passages. Isaiah 14:12-15. From a contextual standpoint, this pericope concerns the king of Babylon and, accordingly, is placed among the oracles against the nations. It takes the form of a taunt (v. 5) anticipating the tyrant's imminent demise. His descent to the netherworld (vv. 9-11) is described with relish. Verses 12-15 refer to his downfall, despite his aspirations to divine grandeur. Throughout most of church history, these verses have been applied to Satan. The earliest appearance of this association can be found in the writings of Origen. 71 Satan's fall had been discussed earlier by Tertullian and Justin Martyr, but with no obvious references to Isaiah 14. This is not surprising since Satan is mentioned nowhere in the passage. Jewish writings (cf. 2 En. 29. 4-5) had stories of the fall of Satan, but there is no evidence that Isaiah 14 was interpreted in relation to that fall. The doctrine of Satan's fall and its association with Isaiah 14 passed into the mainstream of Christian theology through Moralia 34 by Pope Gregory the Great in the seventh century. Once part of popular belief, it easily passed into the great pieces of literature, such as Milton's Paradise Lost, which sustained its place in theology. The doctrine was also solidified by the way Isaiah 14 was handled in translation. Jerome, interpreting the difficult Hebrew term helel in v. 12 (NIV: “morning star”) as a reference to Venus, used a Latin term for Venus, luciferos, to translate it. As the interpretation of the passage as a reference to Satan became popularized in the centuries following, Lucifer was adopted as a variant name for Satan—because that was what Satan was called in this passage!Tertullian and other fathers, Gregory the Great, and the scholastic commentators, regarding Luke x. 18 as an explanation of this verse, apply it to the fall of Satan, from which has arisen the popular perversion of the beautiful name Lucifer to signify the Devil. 72By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the major English translations were being produced, the interpretation was so ingrained that “Lucifer” was retained, even in the KJV. This reinforced to the lay English reader that the passage explicitly concerned Satan. 73Despite the wide popular support for this interpretation, there was no lack of opposition. Neither Calvin nor Luther supports the idea that Isaiah 14 refers to the fall of Satan. Calvin is particularly undiplomatic as his heaps scorn on those who adopt such a noncontextual intrusion. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it should refer to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance to imagine that Lucifer was the king of the devils, and that the prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables. 74From a hermeneutical standpoint one could hardly claim that Isaiah was intentionally addressing the issue of Satan's fall. Aside from not mentioning Satan, we have already seen how little the Israelite view of Satan would have accommodated such an understanding. Given our knowledge about what the Israelite audience knew (or did not know) about Satan, we would have no reason to assume that Isaiah would consider his audience automatically able to relate the information about the king of Babylon to Satan or his fall.
|
Lacking support in the author's intention, we would be equally hard pressed to sustain the suggestion that the passage refers to Satan, even though the author knew nothing of that association. Some have attempted this by invoking a sensus plenior related to a divine intention, much like the concept used to understand prophecy and fulfillment. However, we have no later revelation to support a connection between Isaiah 14 and the fall of Satan, so claiming “divine intention” is difficult. Those who seek to attach a sensus plenior, such as that invoked for other prophecy, face the difficulty that sensus plenior is only applied to future fulfillment and not to past events, such as the purported primeval fall of Satan. This is a different category altogether. Those who continue to interpret Isaiah 14 as a reference to the fall of Satan base their beliefs on the statements made in vv. 13-14. They typically maintain that no human being could make such statements or seriously entertain such possibilities. Such assessments sadly underestimate the inclinations of rulers in the ancient world to make grandiose statements that would mock the label hyperbole as a vast understatement. One need not even read the inscriptional literature (though that would be instructive),75 for ample evidence of royal hubris is even provided in biblical records such as Isaiah 47:8, where Babylon claims for itself, “I am, and there is none besides me!” (cf. Zeph. 2:15). Moreover, we do not need to view Isaiah 14:13-14 as statements the king would actually make, for here the prophet is drawing a caricature, perhaps referencing well-known mythical material. This king, who takes his own mythology too seriously and even supposes himself capable of grandiose accomplishments like those sometimes enshrined in myth, will find himself instead in a similar situation to that portrayed in other mythology: the outcast, would-be usurper. Ezekiel 28:12-19. In contrast to Isaiah 14, this passage has more obvious references to a primeval situation. Although it refers contextually to the king of Tyre, mention of the “garden of God” (v. 13) and the “cherub” (v. 14) have given interpreters sufficient basis to move beyond the stated context. Admittedly, it is within the function of metaphor to point to something outside itself; yet the interpreter must still ask what the author intends the metaphor to relate to in this particular context. Commentators have traditionally stated three reasons to support their claim that the king of Tyre should be understood as Satan: (1) the king is in the garden; (2) the king is identified as the cherub; and (3) the passage alludes to a fall from a blameless condition. As we examine each of these in light of Old Testament theology, however, the interpretation becomes increasingly difficult to maintain. With regard to the first point, we must recognize that there is no indication in the Old Testament that the Israelites believed Satan was in the garden of Eden. No Old Testament passage either equates or relates the serpent and Satan, whether in Genesis or elsewhere (see below for further discussion). If Ezekiel 28 were phrased as instruction, suggesting that such an equation should be made, it would be another matter, but the Satan interpretation suggests that this passage refers to the fall of Satan metaphorically. For such a metaphor to work, it must make reference to well-known information. There is no evidence that Israel would have known that the serpent in Genesis 3 was a tool or representation of Satan. That being the case, they would not have placed Satan in the garden. As to the second point, does any Scripture suggest that Satan was ever a cherub?76 The cherubim are a specialized class of supernatural beings with specific functions. There is no basis for the speculation that Satan was once among their number, and certainly no reason to suggest that the Israelite audience would have recognized such a metaphorical allusion. Finally, as suggested at the beginning of our discussion of Isaiah 14, the Old Testament nowhere portrays Satan as a fallen being. 77 Therefore, the fact that Ezekiel 28 refers to a fall would not suggest to the Israelite reader that the author was metaphorically invoking the fall of Satan for comparison to the fate of the king of Tyre. Is there, then, any single datum in Ezekiel 28 that parallels information known about Satan in the Old Testament? I see none. If this is so, how can we possibly understand Ezekiel as making use of the account of the fall of Satan as a metaphor to describe the impending fall of the king of Tyre?But, the objection would arise, to whom else could the passage refer? What would we make of a story of a cherub in the garden who was created blameless but then rebelled? It must be some sort of metaphor, because no one suggests that Ezekiel thought the king of Tyre actually was a cherub in the garden.
|
One popular suggestion has been that verse 14 should be read as noting that this individual was with the cherub, but was not a cherub himself. 78 Such a reading opens up the possibility that the king of Tyre is being compared to primeval man, Adam. 79 This suggestion is problematic because, in the Genesis account, Adam is never with the cherub in the garden; the cherub is only stationed there after Adam and Eve were expelled. Those who maintain this identification are therefore obliged to posit a variant form of the Eden tradition in Ezekiel. While the passage presents difficulties to all interpreters, scholars have made important progress on it in recent years. H. J. van Dijk and I. Goldberg have both noticed that verses 12b-15a feature very close parallelism:80 vv. 12b-13vv. 14-15a Identification You were the seal You were ... a cherub Descriptionof perfectionfull of wisdomperfect in beautyanointed as a guardianordained Residence You were in Eden, the garden of God On the holy mount of God you walked Positionevery precious stoneamong the fiery stones Intrinsic quality Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created Given these parallels, two suggestions can be made. (1) There are two parallel metaphors in the passage rather than one single metaphor, as the other interpretations have assumed; (2) the metaphors do not extend to the fall but only refer to the high station of the individual. The king of Tyre enjoyed a lofty status because of all that was entrusted to him; he was the guardian of extensive natural resources, just as the individuals in the two metaphors were. 81 Unfortunately, he was corrupted by them and was found to be treacherous and irresponsible. The metaphor ends where the parallelism ends, and from verses 15b-19 the king's conduct and punishment are addressed (though the end of v. 16 refers back to the metaphor). Thus, there is no reason to reach beyond the context and its metaphors for a sensible interpretation of the passage. Conclusions regarding the fall of Satan. Some have contended that even though Satan is not mentioned in these passages, we know that they refer to Satan because they fit with everything else we are told about his fall. Without Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28, however, what do we know about his fall that would enable us to contend that it correlates with the information of these passages? Where do we receive inspired information about the cause of his fall or his status prior to the fall?The New Testament information on the fall of Satan is extremely limited. In Luke 10:18, Christ remarks, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. ” It must be noted, however, that this is his response to the seventy-two's successful ministry, of which they observed, “Even the demons submit to us in your name” (10:17). It is therefore a possibility, if not a probability, that Christ is referring not to the primeval past, but to the recent triumphs of the seventy-two (cf. John 12:31), though he may be doing it through allusion to the distant past.
|
Revelation 12:9 is often invoked on the matter of Satan's fall, but here the reference is to the events of John's vision, which were still to take place in the future (whether our future or only his). Therefore, they offer no insight into occurrences of the past, such as a fall, though it is not improbable that parallels were seen to exist between a primeval fall (which would have been known through other contemporary literature, as noted above) and the future total defeat portrayed here. In 2 Corinthians 11:14, Paul observes that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but makes no suggestion that he once was an angel of light or, in fact, any other sort of angel. It is true that the New Testament authors show awareness of the existence of fallen angels (e. g., 2 Peter 2:4), but nowhere do they suggest that Satan was once among them, much less the leader of the rebellion. Finally, 1 Timothy 3:6 indicates that “the devil” has fallen under judgment because of his conceit. This is the most information that any passage offers, and we can see that it is scant. In addition to conceit, John 8:44 acknowledges Satan as the father of lies, but neither of these offenses is specifically identified as the sin that led to his fall. In conclusion, the New Testament offers few details about the circumstances of Satan's fall or about his status prior to the fall. 82 Most of the details brought to bear on our theological discussion of the fall find their source in pseudepigraphic literature of the intertestamental period and the allegorical interpretation of the early church fathers, following the theories of Justin, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Origen. 83Satan and the serpent. As mentioned in the discussion of Ezekiel 28, there is no hint in the Old Testament that the serpent of Genesis 2-3 was either identified as Satan or was thought to be inspired by Satan. 84 The earliest extant reference to any association is found in the Wisdom of Solomon 2:23-24 (1st cent. BC):For God created man for immortality,and made him the image of his own eternity,But through the devil's envy death came into the world,And those who belong to his party experience it. 85Even here, the devil is not given the name Satan and, in fact, was variously named in early literature. This figure normally became Sammael in the Targum and in rabbinic tradition, but in a text known as the Apocalypse of Abraham, preserved only in Slavonic translation but datable to the same period that inspired the Syriac Baruch and the Apocalypse of Ezra, the seductive angel is called Azazel. 86Throughout the ancient world, the serpent was endowed with divine or semidivine qualities; it was venerated as an emblem of health, fertility, immortality, occult wisdom, and chaotic evil and was often worshiped. The serpent played a significant role in the mythology, the religious symbolism, and the cults of the ancient Near East. 87 In the context of Genesis, however, the serpent is merely one of the creatures God created. It is shrewd but not sinister. Unlike Christian theology, in Israel there was no inclination to embody all evil in a central figure or trace its cause to a single historical event. 88 Therefore, the Israelites were quite willing to recognize the serpent as representing an evil influence, without attempting to associate it with a being who was the ultimate source or cause of evil. In fact, it would appear that the author of Genesis is intentionally underplaying the role or identification of the serpent; this would correlate with the other polemical elements of the early chapters of Genesis. It is important to remember that, in the ancient world, most cosmological models were built around a god taming or defeating the chaotic forces, often represented in the sea. 89 In Canaanite literature, this role of chaos was played by the serpentine Leviathan/Lotan. In contrast, the biblical narrative asserts that the great sea creature was simply another of the beasts God created (1:21). This demythologizing polemic may explain why the author avoids explaining the existence of evil with any conspiratorial uprisings theory. We must therefore avoid importing into the Old Testament texts the idea that Satan was to be equated with the serpent. Likewise, we cannot rely on the narrative of Genesis 3 to enhance or inform our understanding of the Old Testament view of Satan. At the same time we can recognize that the New Testament eventually does offer some basis for connecting the serpent and Satan in Romans 16:20 and Revelation 12:9; 20:2. In conclusion, the established occurrences of śaṭan in the Old Testament do not show the profile that we find developed in the intertestamental period and that reach full expression in the New Testament. None of these Old Testament passages attest to the fall of a being known as Satan; when we see a being who exercises the function
|
of śaṭan, the text gives no indication that the śaṭan is intrinsically evil. The Old Testament theology surrounding the Challenger must be developed using only those passages in the Old Testament that make reference to this role. If we do this, we will find a far different profile than the one the New Testament or the church fathers would have brought. This new profile will then have significant impact on how we understand Job 1. In terms of our doctrine of Satan, the study here is only the beginning of a much-needed investigation, including a renewed assessment of the ontology and nature of Satan. Is it possible that more of the Old Testament profile needs to be adopted as the backdrop for the New Testament profile? Is Satan less an immoral opponent of God and more an amoral agent, an instrument of God in a fallen world?90 How much of Satan's portrayal in the ancient world accommodates Greco-Roman cultural views? How much were the church fathers influenced by intertestamental literature and the demonology of Hellenistic Judaism, imported from Assyria and Babylonian rather than from the Old Testament? These await careful study by those who maintain a strong doctrine of Scripture but are willing to reexamine traditions that may have insufficient scriptural basis. Contemporary Significance INTHISCOMMENTARYSERIES, we have intentionally sought to draw out the contemporary significance of a passage from that which, in our best judgment, the author of the biblical text intends to teach. In other words, the method has been to move from the meaning of the text (determined by what the words mean and the sentences say = Original Meaning), to the universalized teaching of the text that comes with the authority of Scripture (= Bridging Contexts), to the identification of how we ought to believe and live in light of this teaching. As I mentioned in the introduction to the Bridging Contexts section, this is problematic for the book of Job. Since not every pericope of the book has an authoritative teaching, not every pericope will have a contemporary significance that shows how that teaching ought to be lived out. The speeches of Job's friends, or even of Job himself, reflect flawed thinking and cannot be used as the foundation for scriptural teaching. For this reason, I have decided to do Contemporary Significance in a different way. Many Christians experience significant suffering in their lives. In the end, the book of Job will help us sort out how we should think about suffering, but it will take a while for us to get there. In the meantime, before we begin to unfold some of the answers offered by the book, we can use the book of Job to consider our own experiences of suffering. The fact is, as we go through periods of suffering, we encounter many dead ends—well-meaning people whose counsel brings doubt and despair, our own struggles with doubt, and our questions about God. While many of us may be reluctant to think we have suffered as greatly as Job or to consider ourselves as righteous as Job, we can still see something of our own lives in Job's experiences. Because I cannot claim to have suffered much in my life, it would be impossible for me to empathize with many readers whose life experiences have brought them pain. I have therefore recruited a friend for some help. Kelly's Story I FIRSTENCOUNTERED KELLY several years ago in my class on Old Testament Literature and Interpretation (a general education requirement for all students at Wheaton that introduces them to the Old Testament). I immediately saw that she had some disability related to her arm, but it took some time for me to hear her whole story—an inspiring one that helped bring the book of Job alive for me. In my course, I have the students choose a book of the Old Testament and write five short papers on that book, approaching it from different directions. Kelly chose the book of Job, and I have benefited from interacting with her over the book throughout the semester as she worked at applying the teaching of the book to her perspectives about her own situation. Throughout the Contemporary Significance sections in this commentary, Kelly has agreed to share her story and her thoughts about suffering with the readers. Though she would strongly reject the idea that she was a modern-day Job (righteous in every way and wealth beyond imagining), through her eyes and experiences we will encounter the questions and doubts that Job encountered, along with all those since him who have suffered. This will help to draw us into the issues with which the book grapples. In this chapter Kelly will begin by sharing her story: from the accident that disabled her arm to the medications, the surgeries, and the therapies that have characterized her life ever since, as doctors have sought to improve her quality of life. JHW: Tell us what happened that day Kelly.
|
Kelly: July 29, 2000, has left a permanent mark—that day changed my life forever. I was an active twelve-year-old kid from Colorado, who loved theater and snowboarding and couldn't wait to start seventh grade. That summer I traveled with my family quite a bit, mostly to Sawyer, Michigan, to a small Christian community called Bethany Beach; I had spent time every summer of my life at this community. Our trip was coming to a close, and we needed to prepare for our long drive back home to Avon, Colorado. While we were packing up the car, we found out that the air conditioning was broken. This posed a significant problem for my mom, who was about to start a twenty-hour drive with three kids and trailer in the blasting heat and humidity of summer. We decided to sleep during the day and start our drive at night, when it was cooler. So we left at about 8:00 p. m. on July 28, 2000. My sister, Jamie, my brother, J. D., and my mom, Heather, took shifts to split up the long drive. We had been driving through the whole night, and as the sun rose over the plains, we had driven midway through Nebraska. Jamie, 17, and I were sleeping in the back. I was lying down behind the passenger seat, with pillows, blankets, and a mini-TV to entertain us during the long drive. We had just stopped for gas and switched drivers, so my mom was in the passenger seat and J. D., 15, was driving. He had recently gotten his permit and needed more hours to get his license, so my mom told him that he could drive when we reached Nebraska, since we would be on Interstate 80 for hours and it was a straight shot home. J. D. and I were anxious to get back because we both had gotten good parts in the community theater musical Guys and Dolls, and rehearsal started at the beginning of August. JHW: But then the unimaginable happened. What do you remember?Kelly: Before getting back on the road I faintly remember J. D. asking, “Hey, do you guys want to stop for breakfast?” to which we mumbled, “Not yet, let's wait an hour or two. ” Jamie and I quickly drifted back to sleep. Suddenly I woke up to the most horrifying sound of my brother screaming and yelling profanities that I had never heard from his mouth. I sat up just in time to see the guardrail in front of me, and then everything went black. I woke up to the sound of sirens, with the world spinning around me, and seven paramedics hovering two feet above my face. When they noticed I had regained consciousness, they shouted, “She's awake!” “Can you feel your toes? Can you feel your fingers? How many fingers am I holding up?” In utter confusion, I screamed, “I don't care about my toes! What happened?! Who are you? Where is my family!?” One paramedic lowered his voice and said, “Kelly, everyone is alive. Everyone survived. ” “Survived! Survived what?!” I shouted using the only energy I had left. “Your family was in a serious car accident, but everyone is okay. ”My mom is such a strong woman. As she came over to me, I could see her fighting back the tears and trying to keep her voice calm, “Kelly ... I am here. Can you feel your legs, honey?” I replied, “Yes, but mom, where is my arm? Where is it? I can't feel my arm! I can't move it! Is it attached?” Her voice began to crack as she looked at my arm, “Kelly, you just have a deep wound in your arm, and it probably hit a nerve, but don't worry—you'll be able to move it really soon. ” She did not know at the time that I would never again have a functioning right arm. I remember my mom's eyes watering as she said, “Kelly, you get to go on a helicopter ride! Isn't that cool?” As they hoisted me onto the gurney to be lifted into the Flight for Life helicopter, I fell back asleep. JHW: So when you were finally able to reconstruct the event—what happened?Kelly: We had been on the straight and monotonous Midwest roads for hours. Thirty minutes into J. D. 's driving shift, he began daydreaming about snowboarding, and two seconds later the Land Cruiser went off the road, down into the ditch. He turned the wheel with all his strength, but the weight of the trailer was too much. The car collided with the guardrail going 80 mph, hitting the passenger side door; the car flipped over the guardrail and rolled five times before it slid to a stop in the cornfield. At point of impact, my body shot out the side window, with my head breaking through the glass, and my body wrapped around the guardrail. As my head went through the window, the frame of the car smashed against my right shoulder on my way out, shattering the collarbone into dust and causing all five main nerves, also known as the brachial plexus (which controls that fourth of my body) to snap from the spinal cord. My right arm was torn at the armpit, causing significant blood loss. The paramedics, noticing the dangerously large amount of blood being lost for a young girl, called the Flight for Life helicopter. The accident broke my left collarbone (in addition to shattering the right), punctured my liver and spleen, broke all the bones in the left side of my face, and paralyzed one fourth of my body. JHW: What about the rest of the family?
|
Kelly: That car accident on the morning of July 29, 2000, should have taken my life. It should have taken my sister's life. Jamie was ejected from the car after the third roll and thrown into the cornfield. She broke her neck in numerous places, but by God's grace, she recovered without any permanent damage outside of occasional neck pain. J. D. walked away with a cut on his shoulder. Miraculously, my mom saw the impact coming, brought her right leg to her chest, took the pillow from behind her head and put it in front of her—this act saved her right leg. She only sprained her ankle and broke three ribs. My family and I experienced a miracle that day; we learned how incredibly fragile is the gift of life. JHW: But that was the beginning rather than the end. You now faced multiple surgeries. Can you tell us about them?Kelly: I underwent my first surgery within hours of the accident. I had a deep wound on my arm because the glass went so deep; the bone and muscle were visible, so they grafted skin from my right hip to put over the hole so that it could heal. They were planning to operate on my punctured organs, but doctors were amazed to find that the organs were healing at an incredible pace, so that no surgery was needed—this was one of the blessings I received from the Lord. I was in the Intensive Care Unit in Nebraska for five days before they transferred me to Denver Children's Hospital, where I received numerous other surgeries. Since my right collarbone was shattered in the accident, the doctors wanted to operate immediately to try to rebuild my shoulder. They placed a metal plate over my collarbone and used screws to put the bone back together. A couple of weeks after the surgery, we went to a neurologist to test the nerves in my right arm to see the damage that was done and what could be regained. As the doctor poked at different nerves and was moving certain muscles, he would ask, “Can you move this finger, Kelly? Really try hard. ” I tried with all my brainpower, but nothing moved. Not one muscle or nerve came out positive. “I am trying, but I can't! It won't move,” I snapped. I stared down at my limp right arm and began to sob as I was hit with the gravity of my injury. The doctor shook his head and gave us the diagnosis. From my sternum to my shoulder all the way down to my pinky, my right side was completely paralyzed, which meant that all the nerves that control that fourth of the body were not just severed, but snapped from the brain stem. He explained that there was no way they could reattach the nerves because of the damage done to my spinal cord, and that only a serious nerve transplant could possibly restore any function or feeling. My mom and I flew down to Texas, and on September 11, 2000, I underwent a thirteen-hour nerve transplant with the top brachial plexus specialist in the country. They took out two nerves in my legs that they told me were not completely necessary, then took out one nerve on the left side of my spinal cord and attached two nerves to that one socket. They threaded the nerves across my chest and into my armpit, where they attached them to other nerves in my right arm. When I woke up from surgery, I had never felt so much excruciating pain in my life; I remember sincerely and earnestly praying to God that he would take me home. Yet the Lord had a different plan in mind. The doctor who grafted the two nerves said he hoped I would regain most of the feeling in the right arm and would be able to move my shoulder, biceps, triceps, wrist, and three fingers. Nerves regenerate a millimeter per month, so after the surgery, I would simply have to wait five years to see how my body would respond, hoping the muscles would work again before they completely atrophied. Since my muscles had no electrical stimulation from the brain, they would begin to atrophy and shrink, so we flew to Canada for my next surgery: to receive two electrical implants that would send stimulation to my biceps and triceps, in order to preserve the muscles until the nerve regenerated. JHW: Beyond losing the use of your right arm, however, you had significant pain to deal with, as well as numerous surgeries intended to address those problems. How did that go?Kelly: Adjusting to life without my right and dominant arm was not easy, but the chronic nerve pain that comes with paralysis is torturous. I began to realize that the nerve pain was seriously impacting all areas of my life. The pain can be so intense that my body will shut down, whether by collapsing to the ground in a classroom or going into convulsions. So my mom and I decided to go to a pain management clinic, where they suggested that I implant an electrical machine that would send signals throughout my right arm to override and weaken the pain. The first surgery was not too invasive, but it failed. The doctors scheduled another neck surgery, where they opened up my
|
vertebrae to place the electrodes along the spinal cord, and then threaded wires down my back to attach to the battery they placed in my lower back. This surgery failed as well. After I had undergone two failed surgeries and after months of wearing a neck brace, the doctors still insisted on a third surgery, where they would break apart my vertebrae and insert a small plate to hold the wires along my spinal cord. After spending thousands of dollars, wearing a neck brace for practically my whole sophomore year of high school, receiving scars all down my back, and suffering the pain from the surgeries, the device did nothing. The third surgery failed as well. The year that followed I went abroad to study in Ecuador and was happy to be away from the medical stress and numerous surgeries looming ahead. That same year I regained use of my back and chest, but it became clear that my arm was permanently paralyzed. I took a couple years off from the operating room, hoping that time would bring some relief or even improvement; this reprieve lasted until November 2007, when I met with the brachial plexus specialist who had performed my nerve transplant seven years earlier. He was stopping in Chicago to speak with patients, and I jumped on the opportunity to meet with him, since he was incredibly difficult to contact. He only had time to meet with me for twelve minutes. My mind raced as I tried to think of all the questions I had—I didn't want to waste a minute. I told him I was considering amputation. He interrupted me and said:“No, don't do that yet. Kelly, it is not your paralyzed arm that cripples you ... it's your nerve pain. You will have this pain for life. Normally the nerve pain fades within the first three to four years, but there are some patients for whom, because of the way the nerves were snapped from the brain stem, the pain becomes permanent. You have lived with the pain for seven years and it has not faded at all. I can see it in your eyes right now that you are trying to maintain your life in spite of the excruciating pain, and I'm telling you now that it will not go away. The surgeries you had never would have worked for your condition—those doctors should have known that. You need to have a spinal cord/brain stem surgery, take six months off from college, and then have numerous muscle transplants, moving muscles from your back and legs to your right arm. I'll call to schedule you for the spinal cord surgery in about three weeks, okay?”I sat there in shock, trying to process all the information and began to cry. He sat there, surprised by my reaction and was confused as to why I was upset. He continued, “Kelly, I want you to sit here and picture a life without nerve pain. Nerve pain is one of the most painful things the human body can endure. Can you remember what it feels like to live without excruciating pain?” I shook my head. “Now the surgery has an 85 percent success rate for patients with your condition. Some wake up completely pain free and off their pain medication. Others wake up with significantly reduced pain, where the medication dose was cut in half. But there is a smaller percentage where it does not help with the pain, and it remains the same, but I think it is worth the shot. ”After studying, analyzing, and praying for months, I decided to go ahead with the spinal cord surgery; I felt a life without pain was worth the risk. I just did not know how much I was risking. So on May 29, 2008, I reentered the operating room, more scared than I had ever been. The surgery entailed cutting five of my vertebrae in half and removing them, tearing the muscles around them in order to expose the spinal cord and brainstem. The surgeons drilled holes into the spinal cord and lasered the nerve endings and the right side of the spinal cord to create scar tissue, so that the pain signal from the brain would be blocked. After they finished the laser, they screwed my vertebrae back together and sealed up the eight-inch scar down my neck. Six hours later I woke up and was in more pain than I had experienced in eight years since my nerve transplant. The nerve pain was horrifying; I curled into a ball on my hospital bed and sobbed; the pain was more intense than ever before. They told me that patients usually see results within the first two weeks. I went back for my checkup appointment only to find out that the doctor was not going to be there for the appointment or the appointment after that. I was so angry that the doctor could not take the time to spend a couple of minutes with me to explain what had happened to my body in the spinal cord surgery that he performed. So I met with his nurse and told her what I was experiencing and that my nerve pain was far worse than it was before the surgery. She tried to sound hopeful, but then explained softly, “You would have felt it by now if the operation was successful. I think you have memorized pain, which means that after your brain sends a pain signal for such a long time, the brain remembers it. No matter what operations you have to fix it, if your brain has memorized that signal and believes it is still there, there is nothing you can do. ” So the spinal cord surgery was a complete failure. It was not just that it did not help;
|
rather, burning and lasering the nerve endings made my nerve pain worse permanently, so we had to double my medication dose to try to manage this new level of pain. Angry and confused, I tried to move on. JHW: At this point you must have been feeling, like Job, that God had painted a target on your back. But it wasn't over yet, was it?Kelly: Unfortunately, no. Three months later I left to study abroad in Spain for the fall semester of my junior year of college. Near the end of the semester I began to notice that my left hand was going numb for hours at a time. By the time I returned home to Colorado in December, my left hand was going numb for eight hours a day. I distinctly remember, as I was working as a snowboard instructor, that at the end of the day I was not able to check out my students because I could not pick up a pen; I stared at my limp left hand and the fingers would not respond. I assumed it had to be the cold temperatures, because I did not want to entertain the thought of what it might be. When I got home I jumped in the shower to warm up my body; as I raised my left arm to wash my hair, the arm lost all function—it flopped on my head and then fell to my side. I slid down the wall of the shower, sobbing. I had no idea what was causing this, but my left hand, the only hand I could use, was becoming paralyzed ... or so it seemed. When I came back to Wheaton College for my spring semester, I immediately sought out medical help from a chiropractor; he was eager and willing to assist me, and I consider him a gift from the Lord. We discovered that I had a spinal disc injury, in which the disc was sliding out of place and puncturing a nerve against the vertebrae. The injury was at my C6 and C7 vertebrae, meaning I was losing feeling in my whole hand and had already lost fine motor skills in my fingers as well as the strength in my forearm and triceps. Over the course of my treatments (two to three visits every week for five months), we tried to address the problem with chiropractic, massage, and physical therapy. Throughout the semester there would be days I could not perform basic functions like typing, writing, buttoning my pants—which made my academic career at a rigorous college very difficult. Months later, by the Lord's grace, three out of five fingers began gaining strength and feeling, but my ring and pinky fingers were still not responding. The doctor realized that there was another injury that we had not detected before. During my final exam week I went to the hospital to get an MRI of my elbow. Sure enough, I had cubital tunnel, an injury where the ulnar nerve is entrapped by the surrounding tissues, cutting off connection to the brain. So my spinal disc injury caused my thumb, pointer finger, and middle finger to lose feeling and motor skills, while the cubital tunnel caused me to lose use of my ring and pinky finger. When I went home for the summer, I saw an elbow specialist, who told me the injuries were completely unrelated, but their occurrence at the same time explained why I lost function in all five fingers. The specialist did not find a cause for the cubital tunnel and said, “Some people can get it randomly. You just really have bad luck. ” So on June 12, 2009, I was in the operating room once again, this time for my left arm. They decompressed the nerve by slicing the tissues surrounding the nerve, although they said that, because of the damage done to the nerve, it will take six months to two years to regain full motion and feeling in those fingers. Over the next year I continued physical therapy trying to regain strength, but it is amazing how fast a muscle can atrophy when it loses connection to the brain for eight months. It was humbling, being an active girl from Colorado, to be lifting two-pound weights at the gym, especially since my left arm used to be so strong—the only arm that I used. I was grateful that for once, the medical situation was appropriately diagnosed and successfully treated. After graduating from Wheaton College with my degrees in Spanish and Fine Art Photography, I moved back home to Colorado in May 2010. I had come to the conclusion that I would not try anything else medically because, as we had seen from my track record, it was doing more harm than good. About a year later, I began seeing a neurologist, and the topic of my nerve pain kept coming up. We tried new medications and varied the dosage, but I did not see any results. He finally said, “Kelly, I really want you to consider going to a nerve pain relief specialist in California. I really think he could do great things for you. He has the cutting-edge technology, and the sole purpose of his practice is to relieve chronic nerve pain. ” I was stubborn, but at every appointment he kept asking me, “What do you have to lose? He could be the one that finally makes a breakthrough and relieves you of this pain. No one should have to live with this pain the rest of their lives. ”I finally decided that I would at least look into it, despite my weariness. I would wrestle back and forth between the thoughts, “I was told the same thing about the spinal cord surgery. I was told it would help my pain in amazing
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 19