Arguments for the Sovereignty of God in the Book of Job PDF Free Download

Name: Arguments for the Sovereignty of God in the Book of Job PDF
Author: Lee Villarreal

1 / 392

0 views•392 pages

Arguments for the Sovereignty of God in the Book of Job PDF Free Download

Arguments for the Sovereignty of God in the Book of Job PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

Liberty University

Arguments for the Sovereignty of God in the Book of Job

A Dissertation Submitted to

the Faculty of the Rawlings School of Divinity

in Candidacy for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in Bible Exposition

Elizabeth J. Welch

Lynchburg, Virginia

November 2024

iii

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Billy and Rosella Lyons. Thank you for

teaching me the value of hard work, the importance of persevering through adversity, and how to

live a holy life. My brothers and I are truly grateful for your sacrifices, constant prayers, and

abiding love.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Completing this dissertation represents a spiritual journey born out of a sincere desire to

communicate the Word of God. I am so grateful to the Lord Jesus Christ for saving and keeping

me (Isa 43:1-3a).

Several others have significantly contributed to this journey, and I would not have

reached completion without their professional and personal commitments. Dr. Ashley Davis has

been my mentor throughout this process and served as the Defense Committee Chairperson. Her

caring attitude and warmth perfectly balance her expertise and professionalism. I was blessed by

her love for the Hebrew language and her proficiency. Dr. David Maas served as a reader and

committee member. I am grateful for his discerning eye, recommendations of additional sources,

and overall contributions to strengthening the content of this work.

To my beloved husband of forty years, this whole endeavor, from start to finish, would

not have been possible without you. Your daily words of encouragement, comfort, wisdom, and

humor inspired and pushed me forward. Thank you for taking such good care of us and being

right by my side during this time. Above all, thank you for being my best friend.

To my family, the continual support of my educational aspirations and goals has meant so

much to me. Thank you for your steadfast encouragement. Sean and Ke‘olani Lyons, your

kindness and quiet strength always made a difference on difficult days. To my children, I hope

this achievement will inspire you to continually pursue knowledge and seek the Lord in all

circumstances. Phanna and Sarai Phay, Mark and Lani Welch, Stephen Welch, and Timothy and

Allison Welch⎯treasure your lives, love each other without restraint, and forgive each other

without reserve. To my grandchildren⎯work for the things you truly want, want for the things

you do not need, and enjoy every day like it is the first day of summer.

ABSTRACT

The book of Job is a complex piece of wisdom literature studied for centuries using

various methodologies to elucidate theological doctrines, biblical themes, and literary motifs.

This dissertation aims to demonstrate that a midrashic form of exposition significantly expands

the understanding of the Joban arguments for and against the sovereignty of God within the

context of the ancient views of divine retribution and human suffering. Encapsulated in the legal

motif, the disclosure and discussion of these views with associated themes, such as theocracy,

theodicy, justice, and theophany, identified God’s sovereignty as the most prevalent doctrine in

the book. The three primary research questions derived from considering Job’s situation of

suffering and God’s transcendent sovereignty are: (1) What is God’s ruling position over the

good and bad things that happen? (2) In a world under the influence of dark forces, is man’s sin

the defining impetus that decides whether he suffers or not? (3) Is suffering simply retribution

for one’s evil acts, and if so, to what degree?

The study used sources to address research questions from multiple disciplines,

emphasizing the writings of past and current philosophers, theologians, and scholars of Jewish

and Christian origins and incorporating Ancient Near Eastern literature and artifacts. The

literature review revealed a three-fold contextual problem adjacent to the principal foci. This

necessitated a flexible methodology that considered the Jewishness of the text, employed a

multidisciplinary approach to recognize the interconnectedness of the characters and their

arguments, and addressed the underlying context of current and past suppositions that affect

interpretation. The Comparative Midrash methodology was employed as an interpretive method,

using an adapted midrashic form of exposition based on the Jewish practices of darash and

midrash. The investigation of historical, literary, and theological backgrounds included a biblical

geohistorical analysis and a brief genealogical survey that established contextual baselines for

the authenticity, historicity, and legitimacy of the book, its characters, and its themes.

Further investigations into the characters’ origins, identities, positions, postures, and

dispositions were required to interpret their arguments, and this produced a study that inductively

introduced and revealed results incrementally. The śāṭān, a distinct celestial being who was a

fallen son of God, should not be confused with the New Testament Satan. He argued against

God’s sovereignty under the guise of testing Job. As the one true God, Yahweh is uniquely

separated from other gods because of significant differences in his person, will, and ways. The

aftermath of the śāṭān’s persecution prompted arguments for and against divine sovereignty from

the earthly characters. They wrestled with God’s roles in the divine-human relationship and

divine retribution through dialogic exchanges about the fates of the wicked, the repentant, and

the righteous. Job’s conditional and dispositional movements perpetuated his claims of

innocence, prompted a case against divine retribution, and prepared him for an audience with

God. Silence, consolation, and ethical rightness characterized the assignations of blame and

declarations of innocence that drove the pace of the study to its conclusion.

The study indicates that man can live a blameless life despite evil and suffering. Evil is

the result of satanic influence, and one can resist the inclination to sin despite difficult situations.

God’s authority, wisdom, and power define his sovereign position. He determines his

involvement in temporal matters since he eternally accepts full responsibility for all things. The

presentation of God’s theophanic case for his sovereignty communicates that his existence, rule,

and actions transcend ancient views. God’s defense of the righteous and the punishment of the

wicked are not confined to this world.

 
 
 
vii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... v 
ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................... xiv 
LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... xix 
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... xx 
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 
Background ......................................................................................................................... 2 
Job’s Situation of Suffering .................................................................................... 3 
God’s Transcendent Sovereignty ............................................................................ 4 
The Legal Motif and Associated Themes ............................................................... 4 
The Problem and Research Strategy ................................................................................... 5 
The Jewishness of the Text ..................................................................................... 6 
A Multidisciplinary Approach ................................................................................ 9 
Underlying Context ................................................................................................. 9 
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 10 
An Ancient Approach for Modern Times ............................................................. 11 
A Joban Application ............................................................................................. 13 
Structure of the Study ........................................................................................... 14 
Introduction ............................................................................................... 14 
The Contexts of Job, the Book, and the Person ........................................ 15 
The Context of Satan’s Origin and Identity .............................................. 16 
The Śāṭān, the Servant, and the Gatherings .............................................. 16 
The Context of God’s Origin and Identity ................................................ 17 
Establishing Culpability ............................................................................ 17 
An Innocent Man ...................................................................................... 18 
God’s Arguments Define His Sovereign Attributions .............................. 18 
The Final Outcomes .................................................................................. 19 
The Conclusion ......................................................................................... 19 
CHAPTER TWO: CONTEXTUAL ANALYSES OF THE BOOK OF JOB ....................... 21 
Geographical and Genealogical Analyses ........................................................................ 22 
Uz, A Land to the East .......................................................................................... 22 
Geographical Location .............................................................................. 22 
Genealogical Location .............................................................................. 25 
Bǝnê qeḏem, the Children of the East .................................................................... 26 
Children of the Ark ................................................................................... 26 
Children of the Covenants ........................................................................ 28 
Location Comparison ............................................................................................ 30 
Historical Analysis ............................................................................................................ 31 
The Mystery of Job’s History ............................................................................... 33 
The Absence of Historical Markers ...................................................................... 35 
The Presence of Jobab as Job.................................................................... 35 
The Presence of the Sabeans and Chaldeans ............................................ 36 
The Power and Purpose of Joban History ................................................. 37 
Literary Analysis ............................................................................................................... 38 
Structure of the Book ............................................................................................ 38 

 
 
 
viii 
Job is Unified, but Complex ..................................................................... 39 
Ironic Disclosure ....................................................................................... 40 
Structural Coherence ................................................................................. 41 
Composition of the Book ...................................................................................... 43 
Textual Comparison .................................................................................. 44 
Literary Features ....................................................................................... 45 
Other Literary Considerations............................................................................... 46 
Genre ......................................................................................................... 46 
Author ....................................................................................................... 46 
Audience ................................................................................................... 48 
Earthly Characters ..................................................................................... 49 
The Wife of Job ............................................................................ 49 
Eliphaz the Temanite .................................................................... 51 
Bildad the Shuhite ......................................................................... 51 
Zophar the Naamathite .................................................................. 52 
Elihu, The Observer ...................................................................... 52 
Theological Analysis ........................................................................................................ 53 
Sovereignty as a Theological Framework............................................................. 54 
Theodicy ............................................................................................................... 54 
Theophany............................................................................................................. 55 
Contextual Synopsis.......................................................................................................... 56 
CHAPTER THREE: THE ORIGIN AND IDENTITY OF SATAN...................................... 58 
The Rise of Satan in Judaism ............................................................................................ 59 
Dualism ................................................................................................................. 60 
In ANE Settings .................................................................................................... 61 
In the Hebrew Bible .............................................................................................. 66 
Satanic Attributions in the OT .................................................................. 68 
Culpability Versus Responsibility ............................................................ 69 
The Cause of David’s Sin ............................................................. 71 
Angelic Participation .................................................................... 73 
The Development of Satan in Judaism ............................................................................. 74 
In the Intertestamental and Second Temple Periods ............................................. 74 
The Book of Enoch ................................................................................... 77 
The Book of Tobit ..................................................................................... 78 
The Book of Jubilees ................................................................................ 79 
In the New Testament ........................................................................................... 80 
God’s Sons ................................................................................................ 81 
The Acts, Paul’s Epistles, and John’s Revelation ..................................... 82 
Contextual Synopsis.......................................................................................................... 84 
CHAPTER FOUR: THE ŚĀṬĀN’S ARGUMENTS ............................................................... 86 
The Gatherings (1:6–2:7) .................................................................................................. 87 
Time, Place, and Purpose (1:6; 2:1) ...................................................................... 87 
Historical Observances ............................................................................. 88 
Recurring Observances ............................................................................. 89 
Comparing the Visions in 1 Kings 22 to Job 1–2 ......................... 90 
Comparing Visions in Zechariah 3 to Job 1–2.............................. 91 

 
 
 
ix 
Spirits of Purpose ...................................................................................... 92 
Bǝnê 'ĕlōhîm, the Sons of God (1:6) ...................................................................... 94 
Sons of Israel or Sons of God ................................................................... 96 
Ruling the Heavens and the Earth ............................................................. 98 
The Śāṭān’s Role Under God (1:7) ....................................................................... 99 
My Servant, Job (1:8; 2:3) .............................................................................................. 100 
Blameless and Upright ........................................................................................ 101 
Fearing God and Turning Away ......................................................................... 103 
The First Gathering (1:9-19) ........................................................................................... 104 
The Šāṭān’s Primary Accusations (1:9-10) ......................................................... 105 
The Śāṭān’s Evidence and God’s Defense (1:11-12) .......................................... 106 
The Fear of the Lord ............................................................................... 106 
Fencing Job in Releases God’s Success.................................................. 108 
The Irony of Blessing and Cursing ......................................................... 109 
The Šāṭān’s First Actions (1:13-19) ................................................................... 110 
The Second Gathering (1:20-22; 2:1-7) .......................................................................... 112 
The Šāṭān’s Posture and Position (2:1-2) ........................................................... 112 
God’s Rebuttal and Accusation (2:3) .................................................................. 113 
Job’s Posture and Position (1:20-22) .................................................................. 114 
The Šāṭān Counters and God Responds (2:4-6) ................................................. 115 
The Šāṭān’s Final Actions (2:7) .......................................................................... 117 
Contextual Synopsis........................................................................................................ 118 
CHAPTER FIVE: THE ORIGIN AND IDENTITY OF GOD ............................................ 120 
Yahweh and the Ancient Near East ................................................................................ 120 
Connecting Yahweh to the ANE......................................................................... 121 
Separate or the Same God ................................................................................... 124 
Separated in Selected Passages ............................................................... 125 
Separated by Dissimilarities ................................................................... 128 
Making Comparisons ...................................................................................................... 130 
Comparing Linguistics ........................................................................................ 130 
Comparing Religious Identities and Divine Actions .......................................... 133 
Comparing Satan, the Mimic of God ...................................................... 133 
Comparing Divine Discontinuity to God’s Constancy ........................... 134 
Divine Abandonment .................................................................. 135 
Constant Governance and Divine Actions .................................. 137 
The Application of Theocracy ........................................................................................ 138 
Sovereignty Above and Below ........................................................................... 139 
Enduring Theocracy ............................................................................................ 140 
Sovereign Rule through Divine Justice............................................................... 141 
Justice Combined with Wisdom and Obedience .................................... 142 
The Emergence of Distributive Justice ................................................... 144 
The Applications of Theodicy and Divine Retribution................................................... 145 
Theodicy ............................................................................................................. 145 
Contemplating Jewish Theodicies .......................................................... 146 
Contemplating Christian Theodicies....................................................... 149 
Retribution .......................................................................................................... 152 

 
 
 
x 
Contextual Synopsis........................................................................................................ 154 
CHAPTER SIX: ESTABLISHING THE CULPABILITY OF JOB ................................... 156 
Transitioning to an Earthly Reality (2:8) ........................................................................ 157 
Searching for Appropriate Responses ................................................................. 157 
In Search of Silence ............................................................................................ 158 
In Search of Consolation ..................................................................................... 161 
In Search of Ethical Rightness ............................................................................ 162 
Relational Culpability ..................................................................................................... 163 
The Difference between Culpability and Responsibility .................................... 163 
Controlling Consequences .................................................................................. 165 
Controlling Culpability ....................................................................................... 166 
A Sovereign God and the Culpability of Job .................................................................. 168 
The Wife’s Arguments (2:9-10).......................................................................... 168 
Women of Folly ...................................................................................... 168 
Associations of Folly to Job’s Wife ........................................................ 170 
Spared or Not .......................................................................................... 171 
Curse God and Die .................................................................................. 172 
Arguments Among Friends ................................................................................. 174 
The Stage is Set ....................................................................................... 176 
Portraits of the Wicked ........................................................................... 177 
Eliphaz’s Portrayal of the Wicked .............................................. 178 
Bildad and Zophar’s Portrayals .................................................. 179 
Portraits of the Repentant........................................................................ 180 
Zophar’s Portrayal of the Repentant ........................................... 181 
Bildad and Eliphaz’s Portrayals .................................................. 182 
Portraits of the Righteous........................................................................ 182 
Arguments of Observation .................................................................................. 183 
Distinguished or Cast Out ....................................................................... 184 
Errors in Explanation .............................................................................. 185 
Accusations in Arrogance ................................................................................... 189 
Contextual Synopsis........................................................................................................ 190 
CHAPTER SEVEN: JOB’S ARGUMENTS .......................................................................... 192 
Movements ...................................................................................................................... 193 
Job’s Conditional Movements (1:20-22; 2:10b; 3:1-26) .................................... 193 
Acknowledgments (1:20-22; 2:10) ......................................................... 193 
Movement Toward Cursing (3:1-10) ...................................................... 196 
Cursing His Day .......................................................................... 198 
Freely-Composed Cursing .......................................................... 199 
Degrees of Light and Darkness ................................................... 199 
Echoes of Creation ...................................................................... 201 
Movement Toward Lament (3:11-26) .................................................... 201 
Lamenting Life and Longing for Death ...................................... 202 
Lamenting Death and Longing for Rest...................................... 203 
Job’s Dispositional Movements .......................................................................... 204 
Rejecting Silence .................................................................................... 205 
Rejecting Consolation ............................................................................. 206 

 
 
 
xi 
Rejecting Ethical Rightness .................................................................... 207 
Arguments of Obligation and Expectation ..................................................................... 210 
God’s Obligations and Job’s Expectations ......................................................... 210 
Obligated to be a Ruler; Expected to be Just ...................................................... 211 
Can Job Take God to Court? ................................................................... 211 
The Heavy Hand (23:1-2; 5) ................................................................... 212 
Juridical Relationship (23:3-5) ............................................................... 213 
Accusations on Location and by Prediction (23:3-7) ............................. 214 
Arguments Against God’s Absence (23:8-12) .................................................... 215 
Whose Fault is it (23:13–24:25)? ............................................................ 216 
Offenses Against the Righteous (24:2-12) .............................................. 217 
An Offense Against the Unrighteous (24:13-17) .................................... 218 
Obligated to be a Judge; Expected to be a Witness ............................................ 218 
Arguments for Job’s Innocence (27–31)............................................................. 219 
The Whole Truth (27) ............................................................................. 220 
Ode to Wisdom (28)................................................................................ 221 
Imagery of an Honorable Man (29-31) ................................................... 222 
In His Home (29:1-6) .................................................................. 222 
In His Community and Through His Leadership (29:7-31)........ 223 
Imagery of His Fall and Innocence (30) ..................................... 225 
Contextual Synopsis........................................................................................................ 226 
CHAPTER EIGHT: GOD’S ARGUMENTS (38–41) ........................................................... 228 
The Effective Use of Theophany .................................................................................... 228 
The Effective Use of the Classical Arguments ............................................................... 231 
Ontological Argument ........................................................................................ 231 
Cosmological Argument ..................................................................................... 233 
Moral Argument.................................................................................................. 234 
God’s Rule is Classically Argued ....................................................................... 235 
Sovereignty By Design (38:4-11) ................................................................................... 235 
God’s First Argument: He is the Creator ............................................................ 236 
The Evidence ...................................................................................................... 237 
Design of the Earth (38:4-11) ................................................................. 238 
Design of the Sea (38:9-11) .................................................................... 240 
Sovereignty By Authority (38:12-24) ............................................................................. 240 
God’s Second Argument: He is the Governor .................................................... 241 
The Evidence ...................................................................................................... 241 
He Commands the Elements (38:12-20) ................................................. 243 
He Commands the Seasons (38:22-24) ................................................... 243 
Sovereignty Through Wisdom (38:21–39:30) ................................................................ 244 
God’s Third Argument: He Rules Through Wisdom ......................................... 246 
The Evidence ...................................................................................................... 246 
The Natural Elements: Above and Below (38:31–39:30)....................... 247 
Things Above .............................................................................. 247 
Things on Land ........................................................................... 249 
Things Below .............................................................................. 250 
The Unnatural Elements ......................................................................... 251 

 
 
 
xii 
Sovereignty Through Power (40:15–41:34) ................................................................... 252 
God’s Fourth Argument: He Bestows Limited Power ........................................ 253 
The Evidence ...................................................................................................... 255 
Behemoth (40:15-24) .............................................................................. 255 
Leviathan (41:1-34) ................................................................................ 257 
Creatures of the Future............................................................................ 260 
The Prophetic Demise of Judah .................................................. 261 
The Prophetic Demise of Israel and Judah’s Overconfidence .... 262 
The Eschatological Demise of the Creatures .............................. 264 
Contextual Synopsis........................................................................................................ 266 
CHAPTER NINE: THE FINALITY OF ACCEPTANCE ................................................... 268 
The Finality of God’s Actions ........................................................................................ 268 
The Finality of Job’s Acceptance ................................................................................... 270 
Job’s Posture of Acceptance ............................................................................... 270 
Job Accepts God’s Identifications (38:1-2; 40:1-9)................................ 272 
Job Accepts God’s Instructions (38:3; 40:1-7) ....................................... 273 
Accepting the Significance of Silence (40:3-5) .................................................. 276 
The Finality of God’s Person .......................................................................................... 277 
From the Unseen to the Understood ............................................................................... 278 
The Unseen and Unspoken ................................................................................. 278 
Conceptualizing God’s Posture............................................................... 280 
De-conceptualizing His Posture .............................................................. 281 
The Spoken and Understood ............................................................................... 282 
Accepting the Significance of Consolation......................................................... 283 
Final Declarations (42:1-17) ........................................................................................... 285 
Job’s Response (42:1-6) ...................................................................................... 285 
Accepting the Insignificance of Ethical Rightness ............................................. 288 
Rebuke and Recompense (42:7-17) .................................................................... 289 
Rebuke and Reconciliation (42:7-9) ....................................................... 290 
Four-Fold Recompense and Restoration (42:10-17)............................... 291 
Contextual Synopsis........................................................................................................ 292 
CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 293 
The Foundations for Exploration .................................................................................... 294 
Contributing Background Analyses .................................................................... 295 
Origins and Identities .......................................................................................... 297 
Summary of Foundational Implications.............................................................. 299 
Exploring the Arguments ................................................................................................ 300 
Culpability........................................................................................................... 301 
The Śāṭān ................................................................................................ 304 
The Wife ................................................................................................. 304 
The Failing Friends ................................................................................. 305 
The Observant Elihu ............................................................................... 306 
Summary of Implications on Culpability ................................................ 308 
Innocence ............................................................................................................ 308 
Was Job a Sinner? ................................................................................... 309 
Job’s Positions ........................................................................................ 310 

xiii

Summary of Implications on Innocence ................................................. 313

The Final Affirmations of God’s Sovereignty ................................................................ 313

The Effectiveness of God’s Arguments .............................................................. 314

The Finality of it All ........................................................................................... 316

Summary of Implications on the Final Affirmations .......................................... 316

Contributions of Comparative Midrash .......................................................................... 318

Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 323

Benefits and Beneficiaries .............................................................................................. 324

Personal Impact ............................................................................................................... 325

APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL CONTENT FOR THE JEWISHNESS OF THE TEXT.. 327

APPENDIX B: LISTING OF JEWISH SAGES .................................................................... 333

APPENDIX C: BIBLICAL SAMPLING OF THEOPHANIC OCCURRENCES ............. 334

APPENDIX D: PERMISSIONS FOR FIGURES .................................................................. 335

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 341

xiv

ABBREVIATIONS

a. article

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

'Abot R. Nat 'Abot ('Avot) DeRabbi Natan

ABRL The Anchor Bible Reference Library

ACCS Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture

AcT Acta Theologica

ACT Ancient Christian Texts

AD annō Dominī

AJT The American Journal of Theology

ANE Ancient Near East(ern)

ANEM Ancient Near East Monographs

Apoc. Ab. Apocalypse of Abraham

ApOTC Apollos Old Testament Commentary

ArchBS Archeology and Biblical Studies

ASV American Standard Version

b. Babylonian

BA The Biblical Archaeologist

Bar. Baruch

BAS Biblical Archaeology Society

BC Before Christ

BCOTWP Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms

BDB The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: A

Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an Appendix

Containing the Biblical Aramaic

Ber. Berekhot (Berekot)

Bib Biblica

BibInt Biblical Interpretation

BibInt Biblical Interpretation Series

BibIntFJ Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism

BibRev Bible Review

BibW The Biblical World

Bk. Noah Book of Noah

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

CBQ The Catholic Bible Quarterly

CCB The Cambridge Companion to the Bible

CCP Contours of Christian Philosophy

CJB The Complete Jewish Bible

CSHebB Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible

CurBR Currents in Biblical Research

d. died

DCLS Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Studies

DDD Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible

DSD Dead Sea Discoveries

DSS Dead Sea Scrolls

ECH Exploring Christian Holiness

EMSMS Evangelical Missiological Society Monograph Series

EQ Evangelical Quarterly

'Erub. 'Erubin (Eruvin)

ESV English Standard Version

EtB Études Bibliques

ExpB The Expositor’s Bible

ExpTim The Expository Times

FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament

FET Foundations of Evangelical Theology Series

GHCLOT Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon of the Old Testament

GTJ Grace Theological Journal

HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

HB Hebrew Bible

HBT Horizons in Biblical Theology

HolRB Holman Reference Books

HOTC Holman Old Testament Commentary

HRT Harvard Theological Review

HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs

HTS Harvard Theological Studies

HTS HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies

HUC Hebrew Union College

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

IB The Interpreter’s Bible

Int Interpretation

IP Intertestamental Period

IRT Issues in Religion and Theology

ItPh Itineraria Phoenicia

JAdvMS Journal of Adventist Mission Studies

JAdvS Journal of Advent Studies

JAJSup Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

JArchSci Journal of Archeological Science

JB The Jewish Bible

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JBRec Journal of the Bible and its Reception

JCBR The Jewish Commentary for Bible Readers

JCS Jewish Cultural Studies

JE Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion,

Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to

the Present Day

JEBP Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology

JESOT Journal of the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

xvi

JHebS The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures

JIntSt Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies

JIRRS Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science

JISC Journal of International Scholars Conference – Philosophy and Theology

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JOJT Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

JRH Journal of Religion and Health

JSFSC Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care

JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

Jub. Book of Jubilees

JudUkr Judaica Ukrainica

KJV King James Version

LD Lectio Divina

LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies

LAB Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-Philo)

Lad. Jac. Ladder of Jacob

LXX Septuagint

LSTS The Library of Second Temple Studies

LTJ Lutheran Theological Journal

m. Mishna

MCInt Modern Critical Interpretative Series

MGMultiC Mikraot Gedolot Multi-Commentary on the Torah

Midr. Midrash

Mo'ed Qat. Mo'ed Qatan

MT Masoretic Text

NAC The New American Commentary Series

NASB New American Standard Bible

NCB The New Century Bible

NCBC New Century Bible Commentary

NETS New English Translation of the Septuagint

NICOT The New International Commentary on the Old Testament

Nid. Niddah

NIV New International Version

NKJ New King James

NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology

NT New Testament

NTS New Testament Studies

OHPCL The Oxford Handbook of The Philosophy of Criminal Law

OHWB The Oxford Handbook of Wisdom and the Bible

OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analectia

xvii

ORA Orientalische Religionen in der Antike

OT Old Testament

OTL The Old Testament Library

OTNCBC Old Testament New Collegeville Bible Commentary

OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

OTrad Oral Tradition

OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën

OTStu The Old Testament Student

OxBib Oxford Bibliographies

PDF Portable Document File

Pirqê R. El Pirkê (Pirkei)DeRabbi Eliezer

Piskei Tos. Ned. Piskei Tosafot Nedarim

Pisq. Rab. supp. A P’siqta (Pesikta) Rabbati, Supplement A

PJT Pharos Journal of Theology

PJTPre Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-Rabbinic)

pp. pages

PrincSB The Princeton Seminary Bulletin

ProEcc Pro Ecclesia

q. question

Rab. Rabbah

r. reigned

RC Religion Compass

RCSR The Routledge Companion to the Study of Religion

REBC The Revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary

RevExp Review & Expositor

RINAP The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period

Rǒs Haš Rǒsh Hašhanah (Rosh Hashanah)

RSV Revised Standard Version

Sanh. Sanhedrin

SBL Society of Biblical Literature

SEÅ Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok

SJ Studia Judaica

SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament

SMSR Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni

Šabb. Shabbat

SSEJC Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity

StAnt Studia Antiqua

ST Second Temple

STCPer Scriptural Traces: Critical Perspectives on the Reception and Influence of

the Bible

STP Second Temple Period

StPh Studia Phoenicia

StuBib Studia Biblica 1978: Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes

T. Ash. Testament of Asher

T. Job Testament of Job

xviii

TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative

TBNJCT Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and Christian Traditions

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament

Tem. Temurah

Tg. Job Targum Job

THOTC The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary

TJOJT Traditions: Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought

Tob. Tobit

TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentary

ThTo Theology Today

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

UCOP University of Cambridge Oriental Publications

Vay. Rab. Vayikra Rabbah

VEcc Verbum et Ecclesia

VT Vetus Testamentum

x times

WBC World Bible Commentary

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

y. Yerushalmi

YJS Yale Judaica Series

YLT Young’s Literal Translation

ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft

xix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1: Varied Translations of 'el in Psalm 82 ....................................................................... 127

Table 7.1: Echoes of Joban Concepts in Job 1 and 3 .................................................................. 196

Table 8.1: Comparison of Leviathan’s Physical Attributes in the Created Realms.................... 259

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Diagram of the Development of the Research Strategy............................................... 6

Figure 3.1: Clay Mask of the Demon Humbaba (1800–1600 BC)............................................... 63

Figure 3.2: Reclining Pan (c. 1560-70) ........................................................................................ 65

Figure 4.1: Fragment of Deuteronomy 32:8 (4QDeutj) ................................................................ 97

Figure 9.1: Patterns Connecting God and Job’s Words ............................................................. 275

Figure 10.1: Research Questions 1–3 ......................................................................................... 301

Figure 10.2: Summary of Implications on Culpability ............................................................... 307

Figure 10.3: Research Question 4 .............................................................................................. 309

Figure 10.4: Summary of Implications on Innocence ................................................................ 312

Figure 10.5: Research Question 5 .............................................................................................. 314

Figure 10.6: Summary of Implications on Final Affirmations ................................................... 317

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

The measurement of God’s involvement in the world is viewed regularly in a spiritual

vacuum, populated by those who claim intimate knowledge of his identity and those who dispute

his existence. Jewish and Christian doctrines can be shrouded in misunderstanding and

perpetuate extreme portraits of God’s interactions with humanity. One extreme presents a God

who is far off, is unconcerned with the daily lives of humans, and does not intervene in temporal

affairs. The other extreme features a God who dictates every moment according to his perfect

will, without mercy or compassion for the struggles and suffering of humanity. The range of

perceptions about the divine-human relationship and conclusions drawn from the pages of Job is

broad, and the text perpetuates a lack of understanding of God’s involvement due to unresolved

questions.

The subject matter in the book of Job is often adapted to the context of the readers’

personal experiences. Persons having faced loss, sudden and long-term illness, argumentative

and unsupportive friends and family, and seemingly impossible trials find something relatable

and honest in Job’s depiction of his situation that resonates with them. Personal circumstances

might leave them wondering about God’s awareness of their predicaments, his perceived

responses, or the lack thereof. Believers may find it easier to credit him for the goodness

surrounding them when life is going well. When unwelcomed changes come about, they feel

uncomfortable with divine attribution. They attempt to determine the root causes of difficult

circumstances and search for other avenues for assignations of blame.

More profound questions lie at the heart of personal inquiries into the existence of God,

his interactions with humanity, and the dynamics behind evil and suffering in the world. What is

God’s ruling position over the good and bad things that happen? In a world under the influence

of dark forces, is man’s sin the defining impetus that decides whether he suffers or not? Is

suffering simply retribution for one’s evil acts, and if so, to what degree? Humans naturally

contemplate these questions. Those who seek answers from the Joban text will be confronted

with other difficulties that may be equally difficult to answer. This dissertation demonstrates that

a midrashic form of exposition significantly expands the understanding of the Joban arguments

for and against the sovereignty of God within the context of ancient views on divine retribution

and human suffering.

Background

Delving into Job’s world can become an extended endeavor that opens up many

possibilities for study. David Wolfers remarks, “In truth the Book of Job is … the realisation of

the combination of forms, wisdom, prophecy, psalm, drama, contest, lament, theodicy, history,

and allegory, fused in the crucible of genius to be one of a kind for all time.”

The volume of

research on the book is staggering, attesting to Wolfers’ comment, and the range of disciplines

and applications of its many lessons appear to be countless. From the connections to ancient

Near Eastern (ANE) literature to volumes of comprehensive commentaries, the versatility of this

story continues to captivate people. Jeffrey Boss believes that “the uniqueness of the book of Job

(and its fascination for so many readers) resides partly in it being so many things at once.”

Yet

its approach to elucidating theological and doctrinal truths, in conjunction with its composition

and its structure, set it apart from other books in the Bible and extrabiblical sources.

David Wolfers, Deep Things Out of Darkness: The Book of Job, Essays and a New English Translation

(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), 50-51.

Jeffrey Boss, Human Consciousness of God in the Book of Job: A Theological and Psychological

Commentary (London, England: T & T Clark International, 2010), 2.

The book’s predominant subject is God’s sovereignty, and any other content is used to

define, identify, and enhance the presentation of his ruling authority, wisdom, and power. This

expansive topic is fundamentally connected to several critical theological concepts (i.e.,

theocracy, theodicy, and divine retribution). By definition, sovereignty is “the inherent right to

rule” and the “continuous, unimpeded exercise of that right.”

The identification of God as a

sovereign ruler over his people means that many generations of Jews and God-fearers lived and

worshipped as part of a theocracy; God was accepted as the ruler of their nation. The Joban

characters introduce tensions that enhance the storyline and foster the idea that the book is a

theodicy (decisions made in the heavenly court, devastating judgments imposed on earth, and

Job’s situation of suffering). The Joban explanation of God’s transcendent sovereignty is also

enhanced by using a legal frame that addresses the belief and application of retribution theology

using associated themes (e.g., blessing, cursing, silence, consolation, and ethical rightness).

Job’s Situation of Suffering

Job’s situation is fraught with devastating calamities (Job 1:13-19) and the onset of a

horrible malady (2:7), explaining the temporal sources of his suffering. The connection of his

suffering to the earthly characters’ struggle to understand theocracy is vividly portrayed and

linked to theodical notions.

David Burrell and Anthony Johns are not so keen, saying that if the

book is “a classical theodicy of divine testing and of reward and punishment,” then it fails to

show that “good things are in store for all who abide by the Torah” and that “affliction attends

Richard S. Taylor, The Theological Formation, vol. 3, Exploring Christian Holiness (Kansas City, MO:

Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1985), 16.

Steven J. Lawson, Job, vol. 10, HOTC, ed. by Max Anders (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group,

2005), 21; James L. Crenshaw, ed. Theodicy in the Old Testament, IRT 4 (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983),

4-6; Katharine Dell and Will Kynes, eds., Reading Job Intertextually, LHBOTS 574 (New York, NY: Bloomsbury

T&T Clark, 2013), 39, 53, 180, 273-4, 285, 290; Humphreys F. Zgambo and Angelo Nicolaides, “A Brief

Exposition on the Notions of Human Suffering, Theodicy and Theocracy in the Book of Job,” PJT 103, no. 1

(2022): 2.

anyone who does not.”

Conversely, Job is rewarded for his faithfulness without substantive

evidence of disobedience and repentance (42:10-16).

God’s Transcendent Sovereignty

God’s transcendent sovereignty is consistently investigated when it comes to Job’s plight

and is surrounded by additional questions to those previously proffered. If Job is blameless, why

does he not have immediate access to God when he asks for it? Is God aloof or too preoccupied

to respond to Job’s ongoing situation? God’s initial silence and perceived absence fuels

inferences about the closeness of Job and God’s relationship, comparing it to the supposed

separateness between the Creator and creation. His sovereignty conveys that creation has no

control over him. God crosses the divide between the two concepts, meeting Job in his current

state of boldness, forthrightness, and vulnerability. Job yearns to move beyond his human

intuition, but he cannot transcend his level of knowledge without divine revelation. God does not

forfeit his transcendence or compromise his ruling position by revealing himself to Job on a

personal level.

The Legal Motif and Associated Themes

The legal motif dominates the Joban landscape of prose and poetry. This consistent theme

perpetuates the use of applicable terms and the unfolding presentation of arguments about God’s

relationship to the heavenly and earthly realms, divine retribution through blessing and cursing,

and the presence of suffering. The arguments of the satanic figure and earthly characters are

personal and relate to longstanding beliefs on retribution and justice. Contributing factors shape

and influence their dialogic exchanges, which are driven by worry, despair, jealousy, bitterness,

David B. Burrell and A. H. Johns, Deconstructing Theodicy: Why Job Has Nothing to Say to the Puzzle of

Suffering (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2008), 9.

pride, self-righteousness, and a flawed understanding of God’s person and presence. Job’s

friends argue for justice and that everyone gets what they deserve because God determines who

is righteous and wicked. Despite the claims that God is in control as both the Judge and

Retributor, their arguments are fueled by the absence of honest introspection and the inability to

employ their limited knowledge adequately.

Consistent engagement of the associated themes of silence, consolation, and ethical

rightness complements and drives the pragmatic and emotive narrative toward the final chapter

(42). Job’s overwhelming holistic challenges move beyond the immediacy of his situation to his

tortuous need to understand his place within God’s kingdom. Job’s vocality pushes to the point

of accusatory language against his friends and God when presenting his case. Still, he hesitates to

speak as a witness on the stand in the presence of the Judge (40:3-5). Arguments come at Job

from all sides as he moves back and forth between his defense and the prosecution of God. Job

breaks his initial silence because he is seeking the presence of God; he wants to experience true

consolation, and he needs to establish for himself whether there is a sense of ethical rightness in

the world.

The Problem and Research Strategy

A three-fold contextual problem arises from considering the principal foci (sovereignty,

divine retribution, and human suffering) and the identified research questions (RQ; Figure 1.1).

Resolving the problem in a manner that thoroughly investigates the thesis and adds to current

scholarship will require a research strategy that (1) incorporates the Jewishness of the text, (2)

finds a flexible research method that will allow for broader comparisons of the characters and

their arguments, and (3) recognizes the importance of including adequate background material to

address the underlying context of sources used in the study.

Figure 1.1: Diagram of the Development of the Research Strategy

The Jewishness of the Text

The literary sources used to analyze the book of Job shed light on the cultures and

spirituality of past peoples who populated the ANE. However, some scholars use extrabiblical

literature and artifacts from this region to diminish the book’s historicity, the uniqueness of its

characters, and its portrayal of God’s sovereignty.

These sources facilitate the discovery of the

Jewish distinctiveness embedded in the text and add to its historical, literary, and theological

credibility.

Lindsay Wilson, Job, THOTC, ed. J. Gordon McConville and Craig Bartholomew (Grand Rapids, MI:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), 14; Tremper Longman III, ed., Job, BCOTWP (Grand Rapids,

MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 34; Hartley cites ANE influence upon the author’s writing but it is not clear until later

that he sees Job as a historical person; John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 20-4, 93.

The inferences and implications of Jewishness in the Joban text are demonstrated in

several ways. Jewish and early Christian sources historically debate Job’s existence and his

Jewish lineage. The book of Job has the largest concentration of hapax legomena, followed by

“Song of Songs, Isaiah, Proverbs, Nahum, Lamentations, and Habakkuk.”

This literary fact

infers that the writing is atypical of other Old Testament (OT) books and highlights similarities

and differences between ancient Hebrew and other ANE languages. Theologically, numerous

correlations can be drawn from the OT and extrabiblical texts about God’s existence and

sovereign identity, his interactions with humans in diverse circumstances, Job’s beliefs and

religious practices, and consistent faith-based questions that arise in the story.

The first aspect of the contextual problem is that Jewish and early Christian writings are

only sometimes cited in contemporary scholarship on the book, noting that many early Christian

writers were Jewish or converts to Judaism. A rich history of Jewish literature provides the

necessary contextual background on Job’s struggle within the spiritual and theological

constraints of his day. Readers and students of Job may be unfamiliar with the origins and

practices of Jewish interpretation, teaching, and commentary, along with being unaware of why

this background information is essential.

The inclusion of Jewish literature in biblical and theological studies, especially rabbinic

texts, strengthens an inquiry in four ways:

• Interpretation – An increased familiarity with the Hebrew language and the structure

of sacred Jewish texts, like the Tanakh, the Talmud, and the Targums, will aid in

Hapax legomena is the plural term for the Greek word, hapax legomenon. These are words or word forms

that are used once or only a few times in the Bible; Frederick E. Greenspahn, “The Number and Distribution of

Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew,” VT 30 no. 1 (January, 1980): 13.

Appendix A gives an overview of the origins and development of Jewish oral and written traditions.

These traditions produced ancient texts that provide necessary content and context for this study.

textual and linguistic analyses, ascertain the meaning of biblical passages, and

provide avenues for comparisons of other biblical translations and external sources.

• Historical-cultural Insight – Knowledge of the history, traditions, and customs of the

Jewish past and the ancient world will illuminate many aspects of society and clarify

scripture passages that are limited in detail and context.

• Connecting the Old and New Testaments – An in-depth study of the OT using Jewish

texts reveals a consistency in Jewish faith and practice and its transition to the

Messianic world of Jesus Christ and his followers in the New Testament (NT). The

fulfillment of biblical prophecies and the revelation of things to come reinforce the

continuity of God’s person and presence in conjunction with his will and ways.

• Connecting Judaism and Christianity – Christianity originated in the East, and the

first writers were Jews. They instilled spiritual knowledge and preserved the Jewish

heritage of pursuing righteousness in word and deed, which stems from their devotion

to the spiritual disciplines found in Jewish writings.

Incorporating Jewish literature in this study, with input from primary and secondary

sources, reflects these desirable benefits. The interpretation of biblical words, scripture passages,

spiritual practices, and theological concepts are expanded through various translations of biblical

texts and commentaries in multiple languages (i.e., Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, German, and

French). The historical-cultural background of ancient Jewish life, laws, and expectations assist

with understanding physical, social, and spiritual contexts that affect the relationships and

interactions of the characters (e.g., worship, forgiveness, mourning, and grief). The book of Job

reaches beyond the OT into the NT through its Messianic message, and its prophetic overtones

have eschatological connotations. Merging information from ancient, modern, and contemporary

Jewish, Christian, and ANE sources will culminate in a diverse study that includes content and

context from multiple disciplines.

A Multidisciplinary Approach

The second aspect of the contextual problem is that the book’s literary and theological

complexities require a flexible method of study that investigates the principal foci using a

multidisciplinary approach.

A wide range of methodologies can be used to engage with the most

prevalent of Joban topics, themes, and motifs.

Some methods isolate the topic in a way that

narrows the focus and limits the scope of research. This adds value effectively, incrementally,

and substantively to the larger body of scholarship on any given topic.

The available scholarship on God’s sovereignty is broad and does not consistently bring

to bear the multilayered interconnectedness of the Joban characters and their arguments.

Commentaries and Joban monographs often briefly discuss the characters’ origins, identities,

attributes, and behaviors as contributing factors to more prominent themes (i.e., sovereignty,

patience, mercy, and love) or to support some underlying context that influences the scope of the

research.

Underlying Context

The third aspect of the problem is that the Joban study of God’s sovereignty alone, or as

influenced by ancient views, results in layers of context that may not include sufficient

background material to explain suppositions about the arguments fully. Additionally, content that

originates from outside Jewish and Christian scholarship can be incorporated without properly

Boss, Human Consciousness, 2; In part, Boss’ opinion is based on Wolfers previous quote on the diversity

of literary forms in Job (see Footnote 1).

See Isaac Boaheng, An Essential Guide to Research Methodologies in Theology and Religious Studies,

(PDF), (Accra, Ghana: Noyam, 2024).

explaining delimitations. The underlying context could include extensive background material

and scholars’ interpretations and beliefs that may not cohere with Jewish and Christian scripture

and doctrines. Examples of contributing disciplines to Joban scholarship may include

philosophy, religion, medicine, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and archaeology. One

cannot assume that the basis of Joban scholarship is biblical or that authors believe in God, even

when sources engage and interact with biblical and theological subjects.

The research strategy addresses areas where additional background information and

clarification are needed and limits underlying context that may result from the outlined

contextual problem. Several brief examples illustrate the problem and how these affect the

outcomes of scholarly conclusions, such as: (a) Questioning the historicity of the story and its

earthly characters can relegate the book to being an exemplary sample of secular wisdom

literature with possible religious and moral applications; (b) Denying or discounting the

existence, origins, and uniqueness of God and lesser divine beings created by him increase the

influence of ANE myths and false religions upon biblical interpretation; and, (c) Failing to

recognize the Jewishness of the text excludes patriarchal, prophetic, and eschatological

inferences and nuances. These examples need to recognize the legitimacy of oral and written

traditions and practices and ignore the linguistic diversity of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages

that culminate in establishing the uniqueness of the text and its message.

Methodology

The purpose of this study is to use a midrashic form of exposition to expand the

understanding of the Joban arguments on the sovereignty of God within the context of ancient

views on divine retribution and human suffering. The choice of methodology addresses the

influence of these views on the author’s presentation of sovereignty through the words and

actions of the characters without having to narrow the focus. The Joban author draws attention to

each character, effectively comparing and contrasting the settings, themes, motifs, imagery, and

speeches so that the audience interacts with the storyline on a broader scale.

The chosen methodology for this study is Comparative Midrash, an evolved Jewish

approach that has consistently gained popularity since the mid-twentieth century.

This flexible

method can mirror the author’s approach and allows the study to avoid underlying contexts that

could prevent or skew the answers to the research questions. Fundamentally, investigating the

characters’ origins, identities, postures, positions, and dispositions will garner the necessary

background to inform on the nature and meaning of their arguments. The approach is ideal since

it quickly engages with religious commentary and applicable research from past and present

philosophers, theologians, and scholars of Jewish and Christian origins.

An Ancient Approach for Modern Times

Comparative Midrash is a unique and refreshing approach geared toward studying the

Tanakh, other Jewish literature, and the NT in a multidisciplinary setting.

The Jewish practice

of midrash evolved from a comparative process of engaging with ancient Jewish texts to a

modern method of comparative exegesis and exposition on a broad spectrum. Jacob Neusner

defines Comparative Midrash as “midrash to midrash,” which “engages the attention of scholars

Craig A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation, ed.

David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies, JSOTSup 64 (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1989), 13-4.

Commentary on religious topics, including the Bible, are not provided exclusively by those who believe

in the existence of a god or the God. The references in this study will intermittently include input from individuals

possessing agnostic or atheistic leanings. Jews and Christians may consider their views with skepticism because of

gaps in their respective theological and doctrinal beliefs.

The originator of the term “comparative midrash,” Renée Bloch, viewed Rabbinic literature as its own

genre, “unique to Israel,” and inclusive of the “Israelites” in the Bible, “post-exilic” Jews and their descendants, and

“the followers of Jesus and members of the early church,” explains Timothy Lim. In a broader sense, comparative

midrash can use all Jewish and Christian texts as points of comparison, while some scholars might include Muslim

texts, as well; Timothy H. Lim, “Origins and Emergence of Midrash in Relation to the Hebrew Bible,” in

Encyclopedia of Midrash, vol. II, BibIntFJ, ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Aery-Peck (Leiden, The Netherlands:

Brill, 1987), 595.

of the history of Judaism and Christianity and the comparison of” these belief “systems … to

one another.”

Craig Evans, in his midrashic comparison of Isaiah 6:9-10, does not espouse “the

traditional view that ‘midrash’” is strictly “a rabbinic literary form” and acknowledges that

“midrash is an exegetical method which was practiced in wider Jewish and primitive Christian

circles.”

The term  (midrash) is a “cognate noun” of the frequently used Hebrew verb 

(darash, meaning “to search,” “request,” or “inquire”).

Darash is a “common” word “in the

Bible,” with an extended history of usage; midrash is only referenced “twice” (2 Chron 13:22;

24:27).

Even so, darash and midrash are closely connected terms. Midrash moved beyond

darash (searching) to interpretation and informing, leading to the consistent teaching and rearing

of Jewish minds and hearts. This extension promoted the oral and written understanding of God

and his expectations while clarifying the Jewish way of life and their history.

Evans elaborates,

[M]idrash was the conviction that authoritative traditions … have enduring meaning for the

community of faith and that these traditions address themselves to, and elucidate, the community’s

historical experience. Committed to this hermeneutic, the community searches (darash) the scriptures

with the conviction that an interpretation (midrash) will be found that will give meaning to its

experience.

The impact of the Jewish conviction to continually search the scriptures to apply relevant

interpretations spans the generations to the present day, for this is a perpetual process that aids in

individual and communal spiritual development.

Jacob Neusner, “Toward a Theory of Comparison,” Religion 16 (1986): 269.

Evans, To See and Not Perceive, 13-4.

Paul D. Mandel, The Origins of Midrash: From Teaching to Text, vol. 180, JSJSup, ed. Benjamin G.

Wright III (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2017), 9.

Ibid.

Steven D. Fraade, “Literary Composition and Oral Performance in Early Midrashim,” OTrad 14 (1999):

35.

Evans, 13-4; Of further note, the body of recorded midrash was considered to be a genre in Jewish

literature. In becoming universally recognized as an exegetical method, its increased use as a modern research

methodology has renewed interest in studying the Midrash Halakhah, the Midrash Haggadah, and other Jewish

texts (see Appendix A).

A Joban Application

Employing and adapting this exegetical method into a midrashic form of exposition

produces a deep and dynamic offering. This form of research is used to search (darash) available

scholarship on a broader spectrum to review the available interpretations (midrash) for a Joban

application. Comparative Midrash, once exclusively a Jewish verbal and written practice, has

become an exercise that includes “new texts and broader, more encompassing methods,”

explains Evans, which enriches the foundation and outcomes of this study.

While the content of

this study engages with the midrash of ancient to medieval Jewish sages, applying the method is

not quintessentially a midrashic exploration of only Rabbinic literature.

This is but one point of

comparison amid a larger body of Jewish works (i.e., Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha), not to

mention relevant material from other scholarly disciplines.

There is a sincere desire to inspire an enlivened reading of the book and introduce readers

to the contributions of the early Jewish and Christian understandings of Yahweh’s sovereign

person and presence. This multidisciplinary approach produces an impactful view of God’s rule

and his role in the divine-human relationship. Intratextual and intertextual comparisons augment

the discovery of connections found in biblical and extrabiblical materials.

Various sources

Craig A. Evans, Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture, vol. 2,

SSEJC 10, LSTS 51 (London, England: T&T Clark International, 2004), 1.

The term “sage” or “sages” will be used during this study to refer to rabbis, priests, and prophets who

contributed to the Mishnah, Talmud, and other Rabbinic writings. Another reference to these learned men, chacham

(plural, chachamim), means “wise man or sage,” which was a “title given to the elected rabbi of a community.”

Those who were “cited in the Talmud” were referred to as chachamin “in the Ottoman empire.” The term chazal is

also used to refer to Talmudic rabbis. This is an acronym for chachomeynu zichronam licrochoh (meaning, “our

sages of blessed memory”). Interestingly, many of the famous rabbis and sages were known by shortened names and

acronyms, like Rabbi (R.) Moshe ben Maimon. He was commonly referred to as Maimonides and the acronym

“Rambam;” Sol Steinmetz, Dictionary of Jewish Usage: A Guide to the Use of Jewish Terms (Lanham, MD:

Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2005), 24-5; Appendix B provides a listing of Jewish sages that are featured in

this study.

Intratextual study refers to comparing and contrasting content within a singular text, which in this case

would be in the book of Job, between other biblical books and Job, or between the Old and New Testaments.

Intertextual study would be comparing and contrasting a text with external sources, like comparing the content of

the Bible with ANE, Jewish, and Christian extrabiblical literature.

clarify the subject matter and diversify findings. The research strategy recognizes the

multifunctional nature of the Joban text in that the arguments on sovereignty shape the dialogic

exchanges between the characters to either reinforce retribution theology with claims of

culpability or negate it with declarations of innocence, using Job’s suffering as a catalyst.

Further, recognizing the text’s historical, literary, and theological limitations and the flexibility

of the employed midrashic form of exposition capture the underlying context that brings a fuller

meaning of God’s sovereignty through the incremental advancement of the structured chapters.

Structure of the Study

The structure of the study lays out the chapters in an organized movement between the

context and the content, applying and reflecting incrementally to inductively expand the

understanding of sovereignty.

The context is layered throughout, focusing on the origins,

identities, postures, positions, and dispositions of the characters and their movements. The

background material addresses the intra- and intertextual natures of each topical discussion. The

consistent exploration and application of background material that explains historical, literary,

and theological context is reflected in the content. Finally, this study’s structure, context, content,

and formatting are for a wider audience, even though the study was precipitated by involvement

in scholarly activity.

Introduction

Chapter One introduces the study by drawing attention to the misunderstandings and

resulting confusion about God’s sovereign role and involvement in the world. The characters’

arguments for and against sovereignty are framed effectively using a legal motif and the practice

The chapters in the study will be referred to with capitalization (i.e., Chapter One), and remaining

chapter references will be for biblical and extrabiblical sources.

of rhetoric in the context of divine retribution and human suffering. The principal foci elicit five

main research questions, prompted by revealing a three-fold contextual problem in modern and

contemporary research. Developing an appropriate research strategy and choosing a flexible

method of study, like Comparative Midrash, will incorporate the Jewishness of the text, allow

for a multidisciplinary approach, and reduce the amount of underlying context. This exegetical

methodology is based on the primitive Jewish practices of darash and midrash. Employing and

adapting this method to a midrashic form of exposition promotes the gathering of information

from a wide variety of sources and reduces the impact of the contextual problem.

The Contexts of Job, the Book, and the Person

Chapter Two will investigate and discuss background material on the book and its

characters using multiple disciplines to highlight the base context for historical, literary, and

theological connections and conclusions drawn in the remaining chapters. This discussion

directly contributes to establishing baselines concerning the origin of the land of Uz and the

story’s characters, the literary components that shape and add to how the principal foci are

portrayed in the book, and the main theological emphases that affect the arguments on

sovereignty. Exploring and analyzing the geographical and genealogical connections to the land

of Uz and the children of the East highlights the world where Job resided in the context of the

biblical history of humanity and God’s chosen people.

The views on the authenticity and

historicity of the book and the person of Job can affect literary and theological conclusions about

its content. Further, literary and theological analyses of components in Job 1–2 are linked to the

remainder of the study as the complexity of the content and context increases.

Additional background on the major characters and their interactions within the story’s framework are

covered in later chapters.

The Context of Satan’s Origin and Identity

Chapter Three investigates the origin and identity of Satan before discussing his role in

Job 1–2. This chapter will determine the differences between the naming conventions that are

used in a variety of Jewish and Christian texts and how these representations relate to the śāṭān

of Joban fame. The perception of the villain in the Joban narrative is perplexing since the NT

Satan’s name and persona are often a referent in sources, inserting underlying context that may

influence the interpretation of his presence and arguments. By discussing the rise of Satan in

ancient literature, the text will investigate satanic figures and attributions found in ANE myths

and the Hebrew Bible (HB), contrasting terrestrial and celestial figures and their actions. This

will prompt the study’s first inquiries into culpability and the responsibility for evil in relation to

satanic presence and activities in the human realm. The wider context will then narrow as the

study investigates the development of Satan in Judaism and will use several texts to define

documented celestial activity in the earthly realm (Book of Tobit, Book of Jubilees, and selected

passages from the NT). Defining who the figure is will directly contribute to the parameters of

his arguments separate from the NT Satan.

The Śāṭān, the Servant, and the Gatherings

Chapter Four will move deeper into the biblical context of the introductory information

about the characters in the Prologue (the śāṭān and the servant, Job) and the exegesis of Job 1:1–

2:1-7. The settings move between the heavenly and earthly realms. Questions about the identity

and purposes of the celestial group called the sons of God (1:6; 2:1) and the gatherings that

correlate to Jewish observances and intertextual occurrences in the OT (1 Kgs 22; Zech 3) will

be addressed. The arguments are outlined by identifying the verbal challenges against God’s

position and the underlying context of his accusations. God briefly responds with his challenge

and accusation against the adversary. The disasters perpetrated against Job and the exploration of

the śāṭān’s arguments against God’s sovereignty determine that there is a difference between

culpability and responsibility.

The Context of God’s Origin and Identity

Chapter Five follows a similar purpose and pattern to Chapter Three in that it addresses

the broader context of the origin and identity of Yahweh, investigating connections to ANE

religious literature and the god El ('ēl) of the Canaanite pantheon. A series of comparisons

explore linguistic connections between the names of Yahweh and El (Ps 82), the two deities and

Satan in biblical usage and portrayals, and the depictions of their interactions with humanity. The

result of this research informs on the discontinuity displayed by ANE deities compared to God’s

constancy, which instigates a discussion on the meaning of theocracy and its relationship to

divine justice, wisdom, and obedience. These areas of investigation affect the interpretation of

the meanings of the text and are often used as the underlying context for conclusions found in

scholarly literature on this topic.

Establishing Culpability

Chapter Six focuses on the arguments of the earthly characters in an attempt to establish

the culpability of Job and, to some degree, God. The ancient view of divine retribution requires

Job to be entirely culpable and God’s contribution to be distributive and retributive in response

to Job’s culpability. Yet evil and suffering are present in the world, necessitating the further

contrast of culpability and responsibility, as presented in legal terms and correlated to the actions

of God, the śāṭān, and Job. The tragic situation of Job and his wife requires appropriate

responses that explore the search for silence, consolation, and ethical rightness. The encounter

between Job and his wife (2:9-10) presents an argument in favor of God’s rule, and by extension,

this influences how his interactions with them and humanity are viewed. Job’s three friends

juxtapose him with portrayals of the wicked, the repentant, and the righteous, all pointing to

Job’s culpability and need for repentance. Elihu’s arguments are rooted in observation. He views

the situation differently from the friends, determines that the friends speak in error, and warns

Job about continuing on his current path. Woven throughout the Dialogue are attempts to offer

an accurate rebuke and remedy for Job’s situation and to determine the scope and application of

God’s role in the divine-human relationship.

An Innocent Man

Chapter Seven recognizes that Job’s arguments evolve throughout the Dialogue and are

interpreted by how he is portrayed, identified, and analyzed. This chapter seeks to understand his

arguments for the sovereignty of God and against divine retribution by exploring the conditional

and dispositional movements that cause him to reject silence, human consolation, and ethical

rightness. Job’s innocence directly refutes the view that he caused the calamities and resultant

suffering. He asserts that divine participation falls under the auspices of God’s authority,

wisdom, and power. The echoes and transitions found in specific chapters in the text display

continuity in the use of common themes that illustrate Job’s arguments, such as Job’s reactions

of lament and cursing (3), how he views his expectations of God’s obligations (3; 23; 27–31),

and his declarations of innocence and righteous acts (27–31).

God’s Arguments Define His Sovereign Attributions

Chapter Eight will address the effective use of the theophany and the Classical

Arguments of Christianity, which are foundational to the Almighty’s case for sovereignty by

design, authority, wisdom, and power. God’s rule is systematically defined by how he employs

his regal responsibilities concerning the heavenly and earthly realms without directly addressing

the plight of Job or humans. The exposition of chapters thirty-eight through forty-one documents

God’s position and actions as the Creator and Governor of all things. The prophetic and

eschatological relationships between Behemoth, Leviathan, and the demise of the divided

kingdoms of Israel and Judah relate to foreign actors (Neo-Assyrians and Babylonians) and

expand the reach of God’s rule well beyond Job’s situation. Even so, God is responsible for Job,

and he is the only one who can adequately advise him and correct the influence of ancient views

on Job’s situation.

The Final Outcomes

Chapter Nine departs from the more theological and high-level discussions of God’s

speeches and moves toward investigating his and Job’s contributions to the story’s outcomes.

The verdict in the case builds upon the theophanic and theological revelations of God’s person

and presence by applying God’s rebuke and remedy for Job’s situation. An overwhelming sense

of finality emerges, involving God’s actions and Job’s assumed posture of acceptance of God’s

person and rule. God’s actions are defined by his person and his assumed posture toward the

divine-human relationship. He alone chooses how and when he becomes involved in the affairs

of humanity. While his will and ways may be beyond Job’s initial understanding, he reveals

himself at the right time to declare Job’s innocence and fully console him. God’s final rebuke

and recompense lead to the actions of reconciliation, restoration, and reward.

The Conclusion

Chapter Ten will characterize the effectiveness of how the contributing backgrounds and

the origins and identities of the characters lay the foundation for exploring God’s sovereignty in

the context of ancient views. The exploration of the arguments concerning the principal foci will

be distilled down to the categorizations of culpability and innocence and is reflective of the final

affirmation of God’s sovereignty in correlation to the contributions of the Comparative Midrash

methodology. The final discussion of the chapter will consider the limitations, the contributions

of the methodology, the benefits and beneficiaries, and the personal impact of conducting this

study.

CHAPTER TWO: CONTEXTUAL ANALYSES OF THE BOOK OF JOB

Exploring how the sovereignty of God is portrayed in ancient views requires establishing

contextual baselines that undergird the higher-level connections and conclusions presented in

this study. The book of Job is a profoundly complex piece of Wisdom and prophetic literature

that is often critiqued for the absence of typical historical markers, and this is used to discount its

historicity and authenticity. On the contrary, conducting background analyses provides

substantial geographical, genealogical, and historical content that enhances its contextual value,

reveals the multifunctional layers of meaning within the text, and exposes the diversity of its

theological applications.

The story’s setting is in a location documented by name, yet so much is unknown about

its existence and inhabitants. The land of Uz may have been an expansive region east of the

Jordan River, encompassing land as far away as Persia. Biblical references, ancient Jewish texts,

and tracing the history of humankind from the time of Noah forward shine a light on its location

and connect the genealogies of ancient civilizations and people mentioned in the OT to the Joban

characters.

The contextual layering of the study’s analyses mimics the makeup of the book. The

literature analysis highlights its complex structure and composition, leading to an explanation of

the theological framework. The literary structure fosters further engagement with the book’s

vivid characters, their origins and identities, and the basis of their views on sovereignty amid the

dogma surrounding retribution and human suffering. Without genuine connections of the book to

real people and historical details within the literary context of the Bible, the theological

discussions lack impact on the broader theoretical scale.

Gen 10; Jer 25:20; Lam 4:21.

Geographical and Genealogical Analyses

Combining the disciplines of geography and genealogy identifies and explains the

contextual baselines for discussing Job’s homeland and its placement in the biblical timeline of

humanity and God’s chosen people. The geographical context revolves around two points of

interest: the possible locations for the land of Uz (1:1) related to the Hebrew word    (qeḏem),

meaning east (1:3) and Job’s probable ethnic and municipal origins.

The genealogical

connections of the characters to post-flood inhabitants explain how Noah’s descendants

proliferated the earth and became namesakes of tribes that eventually birthed nations. Two of

these areas were conducive to Job’s pre-trial pastoral and trade-based lifestyle and lend weight to

the existence of Uz.

Uz, A Land to the East

The land of Uz is significant to Job’s geographical setting and is closely tied to OT

genealogy. Whatever its origin, Uz began as a small area that grew into a larger region.

References cite the presence of several kings and regional leaders, implying that its inhabitants

represented multiple tribes, city-states, and nations over time.

Uz is not on ancient maps, and its

modern location is undefined, but the OT and extrabiblical texts recognize it as a proper name

for an established locality (Gen 36:33; Jer 25:20-21).

Geographical Location

Whether called by its names in Hebrew () or Greek (Αυσίτιδι), this geographical

location is referenced in the books of Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Job. Jeremiah, “the prophet to

Francis Andersen, Job, vol. 14, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 86-7; Richard M.

Davidson, “The Children of the East,” JAdvMS 14, no. 1 (2019): 48.

Hetty Lalleman, Jeremiah and Lamentations: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 21, TOTC, ed.

David G. Firth and Tremper Longman III (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 243.

the nations,” speaks of God’s impending judgment and includes “all the kings of the land of Uz”

(Jer 25:20).

He makes another geographical connection in Lamentations, contrasting the

deliverance of the daughter of Zion to the punishment of “the daughter of Edom, who lives in the

land of Uz” (Lam 4:21). Job lives in the land of Uz (1:1) and is “the greatest of all the men of the

east” (1:3). The Joban author elaborates by outlining the extent of Job’s wealth and position (1:2-

3), which must be in an area that can support these descriptions. This statement, in concert with

the aforementioned verses, confirms that Uz was beyond the eastern border of Israel.

The

immediate eastern borderlands from the northeast to the southeast were Aram, Ammon, Moab,

and Edom, with the latter three west of the Euphrates River.

The most expansive regions were Aram to the north and Edom to the south. The

documented area of Aram is the largest, with lands east of the Jordan River and bordering the

Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains. The kingdom spread eastward to the north and the south

over time, establishing a series of independent, functional city-states. Extended tribal lands were

interspersed along the Tigris-Euphrates River system into Mesopotamia. Edom was the second

largest of the four nations, bordering Moab and Israel to the north, Arubu to the west, and Nabatu

to the east. Edom and its people are often associated with Mount Seir (Gen 36:20, 30) and with

Idumea after Edom’s demise (c. 150–60 BC).

Jeremiah 25:20-26 identifies many kings in the ANE. Depending upon the time of Joban authorship, some

rulers on the list were in existence, such as the kings of “Edom, Moab, and the sons of Ammon” (25:21). In verse

twenty-three, the kings of Tema and Buz are mentioned; Buz corresponds to the observer, Elihu the Buzite (32:2).

Tema (6:19) was an “Arabian city south of Teman,” and so this is not connected to Eliphaz the Temanite; Unless

otherwise noted, all biblical references cited are from the New American Standard Bible (La Habra, CA: Zondervan,

2020); Gérard Gertoux, “The Book of Job: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence” (PhD diss.,

Université de Lyon, 2015), 6.

Wilson, Job, 38-9.

Annette Y. Reed, “Job as Jobab: The Interpretation of Job in LXX Job 42:17b-e,” SBL 120, no. 1 (Spring,

2001): 41-2, 44; Edom (Idumea) was seen as a desirable conquest and profitable. Ptolemy, Egypt’s pharaoh in the

fourth century BC, officially named Idumea as an έπαρχία (eparchia) in 312 BC. An eparchia is a province or an

“administrative unit;” Yigal Levin, “The Religion of Idumea and its Relationship to Early Judaism,” Religions 11,

no. 10 (2020): 3.

The geographical associations of Uz mostly favor Aram and Edom. The Qumran War

Scroll confirms that Uz was to the east, “beyond the Euphrates.”

Lands east of the Euphrates

River would indicate that Job’s location was in Aram rather than Edom. R. Solomon ben Isaac

(1040–1105; also known as Rashi) interprets Uz to be “in the land of Aram,” but the Septuagint

(LXX) heavily favors Job living “on the borders of Idumea and Arabia” (42:17b LXX) and

identifies him as a “king of Edom” (42:17c LXX).

Job’s extrabiblical testimony in the T. Job

claims that he was “from the sons of Esau” (T. Job 1:6).

This implies a connection to Edom, yet

he could have lived in Aram later in life.

Eventually, Uz extended well beyond these geographical borders and is defined by the

identities of its inhabitants. At the height of its prominence, it extended to the nations of Assyria,

Babylonia, and possibly into Persia. The commentary on Lamentations 4:21 in the Eikhah

Rabbah (500 BC) claims that Edom “is Caesarea” and the “land of Utz … is Persia.”

Annette

Reed, Yigal Levin, and Rashi focus on the names of the tribes and nations and recognize that Uz

was used as a proper name for OT men.

A genealogical baseline from a brief survey enhances

the geo-historic information and the identities of those who lived there.

Center for Online Judaic Studies, “The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of

Darkness I-II – the Thirty Five Years War,” 2:11, https://cojs.org/the-scroll-of-the-war-of-the-sons-of-light-against-

the-sons-of-darkness-i-ii-the-thirty-five-years-war/.

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 1:1, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Job?tab=contents; Rashi, the name

formed by the sage’s “patronymic name in Hebrew, Rabbi Shelomo Izḥaki, … was born and … died in Champagne

at Troyes,” France. He is one of the most prolific and revered “Talmudists” of all time; Maurice Liber, Rashi, trans.

Adele Szold (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1906), 4, 27, 33-4; The additional text in the

LXX lacks “equivalent” references in other ancient Jewish texts, such as the Masoretic Text (MT), “Peshitta,

Qumran Targum (11QTgJob), or” the “Rabbinic Targum of Job;” Reed, “Job as Jobab,” 31.

James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments,

vol. 1., ABRL (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 839.

Sefaria, “Eikhah Rabbah,” 4:25, https://www.sefaria.org/Eikhah_Rabbah?tab=contents.

Reed, 49; Levin, “The Religion of Idumea,” 7-8; Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 1:1.

Genealogical Location

Geographical locations in the ANE are often associated with the names of founding

individuals, called eponyms, and within predominate ancestral lines corresponding to specific

regions.

Researching the placement of Uz to lend weight to Job’s existence requires the

exploration of genealogical lines. Specific names within ancient families were repetitive, just as

they can be today, and Uz was used at least three times in OT generations following the flood.

The three biblical men named Uz are associated with the line of Shem, the son of Noah.

Several of Shem’s sons became the namesakes of ANE groups, like Elam of the Elamites, Ashur

of the Assyrians, and Aram of the Arameans.

Aram had a son named Uz (Gen 10:23; 1 Chron

1:17).

Further down the line were two men named Nahor. One was the grandfather of Abraham

(Gen 11:23-24; Nahor I), and Abraham also had a brother by that name (Gen 11:26; 22:23;

Nahor II). Abraham’s brother had eight sons; the first two were named Uz and Buz.

Lastly, the

son of Dishan the Horite was named Uz (Gen 36:28), but he was of little renown as the tribe

intermarried with the Edomites. This would make the sons of Aram and Nahor II the most likely

candidates. These geographical and genealogical markers lay the groundwork for discovering

more about the locations of the    (bǝnê qeḏem) mentioned in Job 1:3 to elaborate on Job’s

story being a part of the history of the ANE that merges with the history of the Bible.

Gertoux, “The Book of Job,” 5; Juan Manuel Tebes, “‘You Shall not Abhor an Edomite, For He is Your

Brother’: The Tradition of Esau and the Edomite Genealogies from an Anthropological Perspective,” JHebS 6, no. 6

(2006): 3.

Josephus, A.J. I, q. 6, a. 4 (Whiston).

The four names listed after Aram in 1 Chronicles 1:17 are the names of his sons, and not additional sons

of Shem; Bodie Hodge, Tower of Babel: The Cultural History of Our Ancestors (2013, repr., Green Forest, AK:

Master Books, 2021), 144.

Mentioned previously in Footnote 4 of this chapter, Elihu is one of the individuals who dialogues with

Job (32–37). Elihu is described as the son of Barachel the Buzite (Job 32:2), and Buz is thought to be the eponym

for this tribe.

Bǝnê qeḏem, the Children of the East

The Hebrew word   )bǝnê, meaning “sons of”( is a construct that is permanently

attached to a noun; however, English Bible translations may classify this further as several types

of people (e.g., men, children, and descendants).

The combination of bǝnê qeḏem is found in the

HB ten times, with Genesis 29:1 using the “fuller expression” of “the land of the people of the

east,” notes Richard Davidson.

Other related phrases, such as      ('ereṣ qeḏem, meaning

“land of the east”) and  (har qeḏem, meaning “mountain of the east”) are closely related to

expressing the relationship of the post-flood peoples to their eastern environment.

Lindsay

Wilson shares that the author of Job is making a much deeper statement by connecting Job to the

Patriarchs, specifically translating bǝnê qeḏem as the “sons of antiquity.”

Tracing Noah’s

descendants through Abraham’s line illustrates the geographical movement and settlement of

ancient peoples from the ark to the generations following the time of the Patriarchs. Job is

descended from Noah as a man of the East; however, the question is whether he is an actual

descendant of the ark, a covenantal child of God (Hebrew/Jew), or just another literary figure.

Children of the Ark

The Bible does not provide an exact location for the ark’s landing and Noah’s family.

Genesis 8:4 states that “in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested

The NASB (2020) translation of Job 1:3 uses “men of the east” for bǝnê qeḏem but lists the literal

meaning of “sons” in a reference note. The KJV uses “men of the east” for this verse, conversely using “children”

(Judg 6:3, 33; 8:10; 1 Kgs 4:30) and “people” (Gen 29:1) in other verses. The NKJV revised its usage to “people of

the east” (1:3) for all verses except for 1 Kings. The ASV uses “children of the east” in all verses. In the NASB 1995

version, all other references, except for Joban verses, use “sons of the east,” and those references were changed to

“people” in its 2020 version. The movement and variations of the literal and paraphrased translations are related to

the perceived context of bǝnê qeḏem in ancient and modern times; BDB,  , 120.

Gen 29:1; Judg 6:3; 6:33; 7:12; 8:10; Job 1:3; Isa 11:14; Jer 49:28; Ezek 25:4; 25:10; Davidson, “The

Children of the East,” 48.

The references are as follows: Genesis 25:6 for 'o qeḏem; Genesis 10:30 and Numbers 23:7 for har

qeḏem.

Wilson, Job, 39.

upon the mountains of Ararat.”

The “Ararat massif” is a mountain range stretching

approximately twenty-five miles and shares a northeastern Turkish border with “Armenia,

Nakhchivan, and Iran.”

Being at a point where several lands converge, it is also unclear where

Noah initially settled. The Table of Nations (Gen 10) does not give ample details about the

migration of his early descendants.

Flavius Josephus (AD 37–100) confirms the initial

movements found in Genesis 10, stating,

These first of all descended from the mountains into the plains, and fixed their habitation there; and

persuaded others … to venture to follow their examples. Now the plain, in which they first dwelt, was

called Shinar. God also commanded them to send colonies abroad, for the thorough peopling of the

earth; that they might … cultivate a great part of the earth, and enjoy its fruits after a plentiful

manner.

The     ('ereṣ šin'ār, meaning the “land of Shinar”) is an ancient region of Babylonia that

covered “Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh” (Gen 10:10), to the north and the south.

Some of this area was on the western side of the Fertile Crescent, which arcs up and peaks in

southern Turkey and Syria and moves east, stretching downward into Israel, into the areas of

Aram and Edom.

The ark was a new beginning for humankind, and they continued to multiply, whether

living in mountainous regions, on plains and valleys, or in the marshlands of lower

Mesopotamia. Under the leadership of Nimrod, they built the Tower of Babel (Gen 11) and were

Ararat is the Hebrew name for the area also known as Urartu. A common misconception is that the ark

came to rest on Mount Ararat, assuming on the highest peak called “Great Ararat;” James M. Freeman, The New

Manners and Customs of the Bible, ed. Harold Chadwick (Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos, 1998), 14; For additional

geographical information about the numerous peaks of the Ararat massif, see Lynn Malikoff-Missen, “Armenia: The

Struggle for Survival” (PhD diss., University of Surrey, Guildford, England, 1997): 27-9.

Two other proposed locations for the ark are in closer proximity to Aram and Edom, but these locations

are too far south to align with scripture; John Mulder, “Annotated Checklist of the Herpetofauna (Amphibia,

Reptilia) of Mount Ararat and Surroundings, Amphibians and Reptile Conservation 13, no. 1 (2019): 162; Malikoff-

Missen, “Armenia,” 20, 27-9.

Reasonably, Noah’s descendants would have migrated south in search of land to support agricultural and

pastoral lifestyles; however, evidence of plateaus, forests, and adequate rainfall would have supported them for a

limited time on the Ararat massif; Malikoff-Missen, “Armenia,” 22, 25, 27.

Josephus, A.J. I, q. 4, a. 1 (Whiston).

Shinar is mentioned seven additional times in the OT (Gen 11:2; 14:9; Dan 1:1; Josh 7:21; Isa 9:11; Zech

5:11); Ibid., I, q. 4, a. 2-3.

dispersed to even farther lands. Josephus relays that Japheth moved north to the Taurus

mountains and westward, and Ham moved eastward and southeast into Egypt and Africa.

Shem’s line connects Noah’s descendants to the land of Uz, and his descendants named Uz are

pivotal in assessing the geographical background of Job, once again strengthening the contextual

baseline for considering the book’s historical and literal authenticity.

Of greater importance is Shem’s line through his son, Arphaxad (Arphaschad; Gen

10:24); Arphaxad’s great-great-grandsons were named Peleg and Joktan. Abraham ben Meïr ibn

Ezra (1092–1167), a Jewish biblical commentator from Spain, relays that Peleg was born

approximately “one hundred years after the flood.”

Although the HB does not specify, Peleg’s

line settled west of the Jordan in an area that would later become the land of Israel and in the

modern lands of “Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, North Africa, Syria, Yemen, and Oman.”

Joktan’s

thirteen sons lived in the land from “Mesha” going “toward Sephar,” in addition to the modern

“lands of India, Indonesia and perhaps beyond.”

The children of the ark, the historical remnant

of the new beginning of humanity, begat the children with whom God established covenants that

made them his chosen people.

Children of the Covenants

Abraham was ten generations removed from Noah and came through the line of Shem

through Peleg (Luke 3:34-36). Abraham, Shem, and Noah were alive at the same time, but Noah

passed away before Abraham left    ('ûr Kaśdīm), heading north with his father (Gen

Josephus, A.J. I, q. 6, a. 1-2.

Abraham ben Meïr ibn Ezra, Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch: Genesis (Bereishit), trans. and

annot. H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver (New York, NY: Menorah Publishing Company, 1988), 138.

Hodge, Tower of Babel, 181.

Davidson explains that in modern terms, Joktan’s descendants would have lived from the “northwest end

of the Persian Gulf” to the “southeast coast of the Arabian Peninsula;” Davidson, “The Children of the East,” 49;

See also Hodge, 181.

11:31).

Ur was about “half-way between Baghdad and the head of the Persian Gulf,”

approximately 140 miles from ancient Babylon, and “ten miles west of the present course of the

Euphrates River.”

At God’s instruction, Abraham traveled north along the Euphrates to Haran

(600-700 miles) before heading to Canaan and later diverting to Egypt due to a famine (Gen 11–

15). Haran was in Padan-aram, a smaller region in what was to become the mighty kingdom of

Aram. This region played an important role in Abraham’s family even though his line through

his wife, Sarah, eventually settled in Canaan.

The lines through his other wives, Hagar (Gen

16:15) and Keturah (Gen 25:1-4), remained to the East.

God designated Israel for his chosen people through the line of Noah down to his servant,

Abraham. He kept his promises to Abraham (Gen 15:1-21) and Hagar (Gen 16:10), but the

children of the Abrahamic covenant were set aside spiritually to live in God’s favor. God

affirmed his original covenant with Abraham and his descendants, Isaac and Jacob (Gen 17:3-5).

Jewish males would be holistically separated from all other nations through circumcision,

including those who also received what is called the “everlasting covenant” through their

affiliations with God’s people (17:6-14) as converts to the faith. In the T. Job, Job claims to

partake in the covenant through marriage, highlighting his connection to Jacob, the brother of

Esau (T. Job 1:6).

'Ûr Kaśdīm is often referred to as Ur of the Chaldeans, but this literally means “Ur in Chaldea.” Abraham

was not a Chaldean, he was an Aramean (Deut 26:5), and the Babylonian Talmud asserts that his mother was a

“Horite Hebrew;” Ibn Ezra, Genesis (Bereishit), 138; Gertoux, “The Book of Job,” 13.

C. Leonard Woolley, Ur of the Chaldees: A Record of Seven Years of Excavation, 2nd ed. (London,

England: Ernest Benn Limited, 1950), 14.

When it was time for Isaac to marry, Abraham sent a servant back to Padan-aram to find a wife for his

son from among his brother’s family (Gen 24:1-4). Isaac married Nahor’s granddaughter, Rebekah (Gen 24:67).

Later, when Isaac wanted to protect Jacob from Esau, he sent him to Padan-aram to find a wife among his relatives,

as well (Gen 28:2). For many years, Jacob worked for Laban, Rebekah’s brother. He married two of Laban’s

daughters (Leah and Rachel) and had eleven sons, including Joseph. Jacob moved back to Israel as a wealthy

pastoralist with his family and had another son, Benjamin. His twelve sons formed the original tribes of Israel.

Location Comparison

The culmination of the geographical and genealogical context supplies enough

information to establish contextual baselines for comparing Uz’s location and Job’s historical

existence in this region. Comparing the possible locations of Uz is a complex enterprise. Three

localities are credible, two are likely geneses, one is a vast territory, and all are “outside … of

Israel.”

The placement of Uz in Job 1 is not so much about “where” it is located, “but … where

it is not,” Wilson quotes David Clines.

This speaks to the universality of Aram, Edom, and

Arabia. If the book was written much later (e.g., Solomonic and post-exilic), then the author

would achieve a modicum of anonymity in using Uz because of its diverse placement in geo-

history at that time. Otherwise, its existence is one of multiplicity based on biblical testimony

and extrabiblical evidence.

The guiding factor is to search for the oldest origin with substantiated sources. Aram was

in the “regions of the Northern Levant” in 1000 BC, and “Upper Mesopotamia (the Jezirah)” in

1800–1500 BC, and the Arameans originally came from Lower Mesopotamia (2200–1800 BC)

due to the early migration of Noah’s descendants.

Interestingly, Deuteronomy 26:5 calls

Abraham a “wandering Aramean.”

Determining where Aram’s son, Uz, was born and settled down is challenging to do

biblically. Josephus clarifies that “Uz founded Trachonitis and Damascus: this country lies

between Palestine and Celesyria” (Coel-Syria) to the east and west and between Damascus and

Longman, Job, 78.

Wilson, Job, 12, 38; See David J. A. Clines, Job 1-20, vol. 17, WBC, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn

W. Barker (1989, repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 10.

K. Lawson Younger, Jr., A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of Their

Polities, ArchBS 13, ed. Brian B. Schmidt (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2016), 1; See Gertoux, “The Book of Job,” 17.

Bozrah to the north and south.

Aram is a genesis location if the region was initially named after

his son. The other two men named Uz were in Edom.

As the second genesis location for Uz, Edom is often synonymous with Seir. The   

   ('ereṣ śē'ir, meaning land of Seir) was named for Seir the Horite. The kingdom of Seir was

in a rugged, mountainous region of the southern Levant below Judea. Esau relocated to this area

following his dispute with Jacob (Gen 36:8), and his tribe eventually subsumed the Seirites

(Horites), Amorites, and other smaller ethnic groups. Ancient Arabia bordered Egypt, Edom, and

Babylonia, but there is insufficient information about this as a separate location.

With surety, the name Uz cast a shadow upon the whole ANE at one time. The migration

of the descendants of Shem from northern Aram to the lower regions of Mesopotamia and

further to the east explains how the boundaries of this enormous region extended to the Indian

Ocean. Even so, three smaller locations of varying sizes and importance may have borne the

name of Uz, from the migration to Shinar down through the disappearance of Edom in the sixth

century BC. Collectively, Uz is a historical representation of many geographical and

genealogical connections, some of which are relations of Job, but all of which speak to the great

diversity of the children of the East.

Historical Analysis

The introduction of Job in 1:1-5 does not define him as a historical person. Unlike any

other man in the East, he is the son of no father and the father of children introduced without

Josephus, A.J. I, q. 6, a. 4 (Whiston); Trachonitis was to the south of Damascus and to the north of the

countries of Batanea and Auranitis.

The conclusion is that both Aram and Edom served as locational geneses for men named Uz. These men

became established after the dispersion because most tribes transitioned to being semi-nomadic and eventually

settled in singular locations. Recognizing the notoriety of any one of the three possible namesakes, their universal

renown would be specific to: (a) the integrity of maintained oral tradition; (b) the existence of subsequent

generations; (c) genealogical lines; and (d) the education of new ethnicities who moved into these major areas.

proper names. His wealth is outlined by the number of his children and his livestock, which are

“scattered” across his land.

Since the text does not supply information on Job’s geographical

placement and genealogical line, this results in many plausible suppositions from research and

speculation. Consequently, some scholars doubt the historicity of the book, while others accept

the unexplained simply because the book is canonized.

The text is almost devoid of typical historical markers such as well-known events and

clear language and traditions related to post-Deuteronomic or post-exilic societies. Despite this,

other historical connections can be made through archeological discoveries, textual comparisons,

and commentary from various literary sources. The archeological evidence reveals that different

forms of historical markers verify aspects of Job.

Other literary sources provide textual

comparisons and commentary on the dating of the book and the existence of Job, such as the

Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds (b. B. Bat. 14b:11–16a:21; b. Sanh. 106a:4; y. Soṭah 5:6),

Genesis Rabbah (54:6), and later works, like those authored by R. Lowth (1710–1787), Judah

Seong Whan Timothy Hyun, Job the Unfinalizable: A Bakhtinian Reading of Job 1–11, vol. 124, BibInt,

ed. Paul Anderson and Yvonne Sherwood (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2013), 33.

Longman, Job, 34; Wilson, Job, 14; Andersen, Job, 40.

For example, Job initially owned 3,000 camels, and this implies he was most likely involved in the trade

of camels, camel byproducts, and the transport of these and other goods. He would have lived somewhere close to

the King’s Road (the major trade route of his day), like the region of Bozrah. Lipiński, Rosen, and Saidel share that

camels were domesticated no later than 2000 BC based on recovered and dated skeletons and pictographic images in

carved stone, along with mentions of domesticated camels during the same timeframe in “Sumerian Ugaritic”

writings; Edward Lipiński, Itineraria Phoenicia, OLA 127, StPh 18 (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters Publishers and

Department of Oriental Studies Bondgenotenlaan, 2004), 210; Steven A. Rosen and Benjamin A. Saidel, “The

Camel and the Tent: An Exploration of Technological Change among Early Pastoralists,” JNES 69, no. 1 (April,

2010): 63-77; Examinations conducted in the Jordan River Valley, have identified a large variety of documented

animal, geological, and botanical remains dating back over 3,500 years in the Azraq Oasis. This area is mostly

desert in modern times with little rainfall. Evidence of a pre-existing large body of water and considerably more

rainfall have been documented. The land could have supported well beyond the number of livestock reported in Job;

A. Nowell et al., “Middle Pleistocene Subsistence in the Azraq Oasis, Jordan: Protein Residue and Other Proxies,”

JArchSci 73 (2016): 36-44.

Leib Ben Ze’ev (1773–1838), and S. D. Luzatto (1800–1865).

Under these circumstances, it is

acceptable to acknowledge the absence of typical historical indicators and draw attention to the

historical connections that are present and implied. There is a distinct purpose in the author’s

portrayal of Job for the Israel that was to come.

The Mystery of Job’s History

First and foremost, Job is a historical figure; he existed. Many published opinions are

readily available, and one should not interpret this statement to mean that Job’s history is not

somewhat mysterious. Biblical characters can never be fully known through reading and study.

The knowledge gaps do not demand disbelief, although Jewish and Christian leaders and

scholars are not immune from discussions on this topic.

The Babylonian Talmud relays a conversation between an unnamed sage and a well-

known rabbi, stating,

Job never existed and was never created; there was never such a person as Job. Rather, his story

was a parable. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥamani said to him: In rebuttal to you, the verse states: ‘There

was a man in the Land of Utz whose name was Job’ (Job 1:1), which indicates that such a man did

indeed exist.

In Genesis Rabbah, R. Simeon ben Laḳish (c. 200–275 AD; referred to as “Resh Laḳish”) also

said “Job never existed at all,” having contradicted an earlier statement where he said that Job

“flourished in the days of Abraham” (57:4).

Resh Laḳish directs his doubt toward what the

book says happened to Job, believing that a righteous man like Job “would have been able to”

The William Davidson Foundation, “Bava Batra,” Sefaria, trans. Aiden Steinsaltz,

https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Batra?tab=contents; The William Davidson Foundation, “Sanhedrin,” William

Davidson ed., Sefaria, trans. Aiden Steinsaltz, https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin?tab=contents; Sefaria, “Jerusalem

Talmud Sotah,” https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah?tab=contents; See also Schmuel Vargon, “The

Date of Composition of the Book of Job in the Context of S. D. Luzzato’s Attitude to Biblical Criticism,” JQR 91,

no. 3/4 (January – April, 2001): 377-94.

The bold is the original translation with additional commentary in the regular font; b. B. Bat. 15a:15.

H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, eds. Genesis Midrash Rabbah, Translated into English with Notes,

Glossary and Indices Genesis, vol. I, trans. H. Freedman (Hertford, England: Stephen Austin and Sons, 1939), 507.

cope.

Francis Andersen clarifies that Laķish believed the book of Job to be a mashal, meaning a

piece of “instructive fiction.”

Contemporary scholars with popular commentaries, like Tremper Longman, Wilson, and

Andersen, are not convinced that Job is a historical account, but only some agree. Longman, a

well-respected theologian and widely-published scholar, concludes that “Job is not a historical

person, or at best there was a well-known ancient sufferer named Job, whose life provided the

grist for the author to create a scenario where he could reflect on wisdom and suffering.”

Wilson partially agrees, claiming “what was said and what happened in Uz some thousands of

years ago” is ahistorical.

Andersen purports that any etymological investigation of Job’s name

and associations to biblical characters (Ezek 14:14, 20) should not be pursued. Supposed

connections were not “intended” for this purpose, and the story is “probably” based on “a real

man whose name was Job.”

John Hartley is resolved to the contrary, stating that Job was a “real

… prepatriarchal hero.”

The evidence does suggest that Job was living during the latter days of

Isaac and Jacob’s lives, according to Gérard Gertoux, but not before the time of the Patriarchs.

The establishment of the covenants formally institutes God’s sovereignty and the nation

of the Jews. Therefore, the basis for the Joban context on sovereignty and the development of the

theology of divine retribution must also be established. This suggests a maturity of the

understanding of both due to the longevity of the faith. For Job to effectively represent a

righteous man and render the book a legitimate biblical account, Job must be a historical figure

Freedman and Simon, Genesis Midrash, 507.

Andersen, Job, 40.

Longman, Job, 34.

Wilson, Job, 14.

Andersen, 87.

Hartley, Job, 93.

Gertoux, “The Book of Job,” 10.

instead of a fictional rendering of an author’s imagination or a biblical representation of an ANE

myth about an ancient sufferer.

The Absence of Historical Markers

The absence of historical markers is a sticking point for those who contemplate the

historicity of the book and contribute to its interpretation. Some historical markers that exegetes

usually consider are related to geography, events, linguistics, and theology; however, these

markers would only partially determine authenticity. Any deficits in language and traditions

associated with the Hebraic way of life, evidence of post-Deuteronomic influence, post-exilic

Judaism, and redactional characteristics can be explained. Scholars should not attempt to fill the

absence of historical markers with misinformation and should identify existing markers that

point to Job’s legitimacy. Two examples would be the relationship between the historical Jobab

and Job and a historical raid that may correlate to the events of Job’s trial.

The book of Job must be handled differently, recognizing that it is unlike any other book

in the Bible. The authenticity of Job is strengthened by considering additional implied historical

factors. Discussions about the absence of information that could promulgate its authenticity

should focus on key particulars in the text. The imposed parabolic suppositions are discounted by

combining information from the text with additional numerical, chronological, historical, and

archaeological evidence, yielding a more cohesive picture. These markers reveal, substantiate,

and enhance the book’s historicity so readers can better comprehend the message God intended

to share regarding his sovereignty.

The Presence of Jobab as Job

Some scholars point to the historical existence of two Jobabs, one of which could be Job

himself. Jobab, Joktan’s youngest son (Gen 10:29), does not fit the chronological sequence; he

would have predated the existence of Job’s friends. Zerah’s son, Jobab, would be a closer fit as

the second king of the Edomites (Gen 36:33). This Jobab was born around the same time as Job

if using thirty years to signify a generation. Still, he would have passed away before Job because

God extended Job’s life by 140 years (42:16). This supposition is tied to the statement that Jobab

“was the one called Job” (Job 42:16-17 LXX). This is an example of imposed historical markers

that serve as distractions and distort the baseline context. However, Job states in the T. Job,

“Now I used to be a Jobab before the Lord named me Job” (T. Job 2:1).

Maybe God changed

his name like he changed Abram’s name to Abraham; perhaps there were at least three Jobabs.

Even so, the appendix found in the LXX (42:17b-e) has several errors, which may point

to its addition around 112/111 BC.

The purpose may have been to relate “Job with the Edomite

Jobab” to “place Job both inside and outside the nation of Israel, as an Idumean convert to

Judaism.”

Contradictions abound in the ancient views, such as: (1) claiming that Job was a

Gentile who fears and worships God, but then using other facts to strengthen his Jewishness (T.

Job 1:5-6); (2) connecting him to Judaism by his marriage to Dinah or claiming he is Jobab from

the line of Abraham (LAB 8:7-8); and (3) moderating what is said about his righteousness before

God so that he is not more honorable than Abraham.

Subsequently, historical markers can be

found in Job 1, like facts and events concerning the Sabeans and Chaldeans.

The Presence of the Sabeans and Chaldeans

The Sabeans (1:15) and Chaldeans (1:17) are representations of the ethnic and cultural

diversity among past peoples of Lower Mesopotamia and Arabia. The Sabeans originated from

Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 840.

Reed, “Job as Jobab,” 44, 53.

Ibid.

b. B. Bat. 15b:2, 7; Job 42:16-17 LXX; Gen. Rab. 57:4; M. R. James, The Biblical Antiquities of Philo:

Translations of Early Documents, series I, PJTPre (New York, NY: The MacMillan Company, 1917), 97.

the nation of Sheba (modern Yemen). Seba (Saba) was the grandson of Ham and the father of the

Sabeans.

Isaiah describes this group as “men of stature” (45:14), alluding to their strength and

height. Various scriptures document that they were a wealthy people who traded in livestock,

gold, precious stones, oil, and slaves (1:15; Ps 72:15; Ezek 27:23; Joel 3:8). The theft of Job’s

livestock and the murder of most of his servants, implies they were unscrupulous and ruthless.

Both the Sabeans and Chaldeans were within striking distance of Edom and Aram.

In c. 1640 BC, “Babylonian scribes” document that Ilum-maz-ilî (1654–1594), the king

of the “people of the Sealand,” was associated with the Chaldean raids into Edom during the

reign of Hadad I, king of Edom.

The Sealand people seized control of major southern cities like

Ur and Uruk. Combining this with persistent attacks from the Kassites in the north precipitated

the need to cash in on available wealth in the region.

Obtaining vast amounts of livestock

increased wealth due to the diversity of products that were quite profitable.

The Power and Purpose of Joban History

The power and purpose of Joban history in Job 1 can only partially be found within a

narrative listing of historical events, a genealogical parade of names of his forefathers, or even a

chronological timeline. The marked raid of the Chaldeans and the blatant aggression of the

Sabeans are documented in history. Genealogical or ethnic identifiers for Job’s visitors confirm

that they came from other locations in Uz. These characters aid in establishing a timeline for

Job’s life for ancient audiences.

Job’s worship practices and theological position on sovereignty

There are two other men named Sheba⎯one from Ham’s line was the son of Raamah, the brother of

Seba (Gen 10:7), and the other from Shem’s line, a son of Joktan, was named Sheba and was the brother of Jobab

(Gen 10:28-29); Josephus, A.J. I, q. 6, a. 2 (Whiston); These men should not be confused with Seba of the Sabeans,

noting that Psalm 72:10 speaks of “the kings of Sheba and Seba” in the same verse.

Gertoux, “The Book of Job,” 13.

Ibid.

Blessing O. Boloje and Alphonso Groenewald, “‘I Know You Can Do All Things’ (Job 42:2): A Literary

and Theological Analysis of Job’s Testimony about Yahweh’s Sovereignty,” HTS 72, no. 1 (2016): 6.

support him living in the days of the Patriarchs. This study asserts that Job was a real person,

with real joys and sorrows, that real people have identified with from ancient to modern times.

Literary Analysis

The literary context of Job is explored by using primary and early secondary sources to

make a strong case for a unified, complex structure. This leads to a detailed compositional

discussion about factors that affect the exposition of Joban arguments, such as ironic disclosure,

evidence of coherence, and other literary considerations. Three prominent motifs (nature,

creation, and legal) are evident in metaphorical shifts that reinforce the coherence of authorial

intent. Literary and rhetorical features will be highlighted to exposit and exegete relevant

passages in later chapters of the study.

Structure of the Book

The structure of Job stands out from other biblical books with a mixture of prose and

poetry, truth with irony, challenge with affirmation, and purposeful conversations on questions

that seem left unanswered. Robert Alden compares the book of Job to “a handmade Oriental

rug.”

Up close, the individual fibers of the rug are woven together in a series of colors and

patterns that are complementary but random. The design forms an elaborate masterpiece when

viewed from the correct distance, yielding the proper perspective. “The intricate design of [Job]

captures our attention as we compare the similarities and differences throughout the whole,” adds

Alden.

Viewing the separate layers of this literary work can make the book appear random and

Robert L. Alden, Job: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, vol. 11, NAC

(Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1994), 28.

Ibid.

disconnected. Yet, Job has a multi-layered structure that offers excellent utility for exploring

complex subjects.

Job is Unified, but Complex

The complexity of the book affects conclusions drawn about its unity and purpose.

Kathleen O’Connor acknowledges that many “interpreters believe the book … is a composite,

built upon an ancient tale about an innocent sufferer.”

This story appears to be “well-known

across cultures in antiquity. Peoples of the ancient Near East produced several texts with

affinities to the biblical book.”

Two texts are worthy of mention. The Mesopotamian work,

Ludlul-bēl-Numēqui, translated as The Righteous Sufferer, dates to the early thirteenth century

BC. The Babylonian Theodicy was written toward the end of the second millennium BC, and

some credit poetic similarities with Job and the Enūma Eliš.

Attempts to date these and similar

works are more straightforward than that of Job, and dating Job often relies on linguistics,

orthography, and speculation.

Speculation is acceptable when used to hypothesize and guide scholarly investigations,

not to make determinations unequivocally based on this practice alone. Longman points out that

the compositional makeup of Job is “impossible” to determine, and the book should be

structurally received in its “canonical” form and “interpret[ed] … as it presently stands.”

Doing

Kathleen M. O’Connor, Job, vol. 19, OTNCBC, ed. Daniel Durken (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,

2012), 9; For a detailed interpretations of these two stories, see Takayoshi Oshima, Babylonian Poems of Righteous

Sufferers: Lulul Bēl Nēmeqi and the Babylonian Theodicy, ORA 14 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).

Ibid.

Takayoshi Oshima, “The Babylonian Theodicy: An Ancient Babylonian Discourse on Human Piety and

Divine Justice,” RC 9, no. 12 (December, 2015): 484; For general information on Ugaritic literature, see William D.

Barker, “Ugaritic Literature,” in Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts,

ed. Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, and John H. Walton (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018), 120-5.

Longman, Job, 26.

Ibid.

so is difficult if one does not acknowledge and accept the text’s irony and other influences meant

to disclose intended theological truths.

Ironic Disclosure

Ironic disclosure is the disclosure of topics or intentions that readers and scholars accept

despite needing to be fully addressed. These may not be aligned with the author’s intent, even

though they may be extracted and interpreted as such. Characters disclose the topics of suffering

and retribution during arguments that mostly favor God’s sovereignty. Ironically, these

arguments did not help Job (13:4) or bring honor to God (42:7). Quite the opposite, Job was done

an injustice since their words came from a rigid, “orthodox theology in careful circumspection of

God.”

The author’s intent is not exclusively about suffering, retribution, evil, perseverance,

patience, or pastoral care. Ironically, elements like these support the idea that God is sovereign.

This is not a case of deconstruction within the text, leading the readers and scholars to

believe that Job’s life is the ultimate example of how to react in similar circumstances, “for Job’s

case is unique.”

There is a constant tension that leads to a question that Clines aptly asks,

“Behave like Job, or Don’t (sic) dare behave like Job?”

God praises Job (1–2), but ironically,

there are moments when Job’s pious speech and actions are contrasted with complaints and

desperate supplications. Ironic disclosure is pervasive, and reconciling the book’s structure is

exacerbated by superficial readings of the text. Delving deeper into the context and searching for

the author’s intent can be stymied.

David J. A. Clines, What Does Eve Do to Help?: And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament,

JSOTSup 94 (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1990), 119.

Boloje and Groenewald, “Yahweh’s Sovereignty,” 3.

Clines, Readerly Questions, 118.

Ibid., 120.

Structural Coherence

Many scholars have attempted to deconstruct this book, claiming its uniqueness discounts

its authenticity due to a lack of coherence. The deconstruction of a “discourse is to show how it

undermines the philosophy it asserts, or the hierarchical oppositions on which it relies,” clarifies

Jonathan Culler’s “strategy” of deconstruction.

Therefore, the structure is criticized and labeled

incoherent, assuming that some parts belong and others do not. One must look beyond the

“surface” structure of the book to grasp the finer points and discover how the text functions

within its contextual layers.

The structure of the book breaks down into chapters as follows: (a) Prologue as prose

(narrative), 1–2; (b) Dialogue as poetry, 3–26; (c) Monologue as poetry, 27–37; and (d) Epilogue

as prose (narrative), 38–42.

Wilson defines the structure by characterizing the middle section as

a dialogue (3–31) that occurs in three “rounds,” bookended by Job’s speeches and what he terms

as the “Verdicts (32:1–42:6).”

Wilson is like many scholars who do not consider God’s final

speech part of the Epilogue and limits it to only eleven verses found in Job 42:7-17.

The four-part structure can be seen as a basic guide and needs to do justice to the layered

complexities that give way to attempts at reconstruction of the text. One layer of division among

scholars can be summarized into three main views. First, the Prologue (1:2–2:13) and the

Epilogue (42:7-17) are from the original text; oral tradition dictates that the dialogue and

monologues were added as a complete section or separate from the Elihu speeches.

Second, the

Jonathan Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (London, England:

Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983), 85-6.

Clines, Readerly Questions, 107.

Lawson, Job, 20-1.

Wilson, Job, 23-4.

Ibid., 24; See also Manfred Oeming and Konrad Schmid, Job’s Journey: Stations of Suffering, CSHebB,

vol. 7, ed. Anselm C. Hagedorn, Nathan McDonald, and Stuart Weeks (Winona Lake, IN: Pennsylvania State

University Press, 2015), viii.

Longman, Job, 26.

Dialogue is the original text, with the Prologue and Epilogue functioning as the “narrative

setting.”

Third, there are accusations of corruption within the text because scholars believe

chapter twenty-eight was inserted.

In association, the third cycle of speeches is incomplete.

Assertions claim that Elihu’s speeches are out of order (should be placed before Job 28), and his

speeches are fraudulent and should be eliminated. These conclusions influence the interpretation,

the perceived authenticity, the reliability, and even the historicity of the text and its messages.

Andersen has proffered one of the better representations of structural coherence by

outlining the multi-layered and diverse arrangement of the book. This releases the book from

rigid restraints that may be shortsighted and forced upon the text. The symmetry of Job is

captured through the “simple arrangement of corresponding materials in balancing positions,”

using the following format:

• Layer One is a high-level arrangement with an introduction (1:1-5), speeches (1:6–

42:6), and conclusion (42:7-17).

• Layer Two increases in complexity but still demonstrates balance in its two-tiered

presentation. The first tier consists of “two interviews of Yahweh with the Satan (1:6–

2:13),” the “dialogue of Job with friends (3:1–37:24),” and “two interviews of

Yahweh with Job (38:1–42:26).” The second tier breaks down the dialogue into two

sets of four, four cycles “of speeches with Job (3:1–31:40)” and “four speeches by

Elihu (32:1–37:24).”

• Layer Three consists of two columns, one for verses in the first chapter and one for

verses in the second chapter. Each column contains the “interview with Satan (1:6-12;

2:1-7a)” and “Job’s reactions (1:20-22; 2:9-13).” In the middle of each column are

Wilson, Job, 31.

Ibid.

Satan’s actions against Job, divided into two categories, “disasters (1:13-19)” and

“four speeches by Elihu (32:1–37:24).”

• Layer Four outlines the dialogue by using the legal metaphor in two tiers,

highlighting the opening (Job 3) and closing (Job 29–31) statements with “three

cycles” of “debate.” The second tier breaks down the friends’ speeches and Job’s

responses, except for the absence of a third speech by Zophar in cycle three.

This structure shows that the book’s various parts are coherent and balanced, with two

layers beginning and ending with representations of God’s sovereignty, substantiating and

extolling theological concepts (evil, retribution, and suffering) in between. The text itself

performs any deconstruction and reconstruction. Concerning the arguments, the subject matter

has a rhythm and flow in the commonality of the motifs and emphases. For example, the friends’

speeches are organized differently for general presentation; however, through comparing and

contrasting words and concepts, the main emphases center on the wicked, the repentant, and the

righteous (Chapter Six). Other arguments appear disjointed, yet when dissecting each one,

commonalities are layered within each dispensation. The word sovereignty does not appear on its

own repeatedly in the text, but the supporting concepts of proof of God’s existence and rule are

present, lying beneath the claims about why Job suffers. Coherence is also added by the structure

and beautified by its composition.

Composition of the Book

The author communicates a familiarity with the story, which is evident in the tenor of the

book. He does not appear to have known Job personally or followed his story from a comfortable

distance. Job 1–2 was either already part of the oral tradition, maybe partially recorded, or was

Andersen, Job, 23-7.

rendered to the author by the Holy Spirit, enabling him to provide intimate details. Different

versions have been compiled, like the MT and the LXX, relaying distinct differences that make

the translation process challenging.

Textual Comparison

The context underpinning this section begins with reiterating that the LXX is the oldest

version of the Bible, and the MT is the source for most English translations. The significant

difference between the two versions of Job is that the MT contains 400 more lines of text than

the LXX. Down through the centuries, this did not escape the attention of church fathers like

Origen (AD 185–251) and St. Jerome (AD 347–420), who attempted to identify issues between

the two versions. Jerome also used the Vulgate as a source for his study. Contemporary scholars

(e.g., Gustav Bickell, Adalbert Merx, and Edwin Hatch) attempted to categorize and correct

errors without resolution, unfairly assigning blame to the LXX translators.

These theologians

actively published in the late 1800s to early 1900s. Harry Orlinsky provides an overview of

arguments on the LXX from Origen, Jerome, and scholars from the eighteenth through the

twentieth centuries, including those mentioned above. Orlinsky observes,

Such commentators … make practically no mention of the Septuagint where the masoretic text

presents to them no difficulty. It is only when their opinions of what the author of Job may or should

have written are upset by the preserved reading that they resort to the Septuagint … when it can⎯on

their view⎯be made to support their opinions.

This is not to dismiss the role of either translation in studying Job and the OT. Comparisons

contribute to meaningful discussions, recognizing that this book can partially be explained only

Harry M. Orlinsky, “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job,” HUCA 28 (1957): 53-74; See also

Gustav Bickell, De Indole ac Ratione Versionis Alexandrinae in Interpretando Libro Jobi (1862., repr., Charleston,

SC: Legare Street Press, 2023); Adalbert Merx, Das Gedicht Von Hiob (Jena, Germany: Verlag Hermann Dufft,

1871; Edwin Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1889).

Orlinsky, “Studies in the Septuagint,” 72.

due to its historical, literary, and theological distinctiveness. Many words in the book are

difficult to translate.

Literary Features

Employing an extensive vocabulary adds to the complexity of the translation process.

Alden elaborates, “Job has the largest number of hapax legomena of any book in the Bible. …

Some words are pure hapaxes; that is, there are no cognates, alternate spellings, or similarities to

any other Hebrew words.”

Frederick Greenspahn acknowledges, “The heaviest concentrations

fall in poetic books, with numerous occurrences from Job, Isaiah, and less obviously Song of

Songs and Lamentations whose smaller size obscures this fact.”

Religious and ANE texts

authored after the Bible assist in translating words of Aramaic, Arabic, and Greek origin.

Over

ten legal terms, along with words and concepts related to other disciplines (astronomy, zoology,

and meteorology), are referenced. The variety of unknown words or literary distinctions

compared to other biblical texts does not yield much.

The rhetorical activity within the text has a solidifying effect that literarily fuses Job with

the OT. Clines mentions that “rhetoric triumphs over mere fact.”

Job’s inclusion in the Writings

does not preclude the recognition of characteristics in prophetic works, which is driven by

literary devices used throughout Scripture. Several devices employed in Job are: “proverbs

(5:17), irony (12:2), simile (14:2), metaphor (16:13), metonymy (16:19), hymn (28), soliloquy

(31), and riddle (41:5).”

“Hebrew poetry and parallelism” are used throughout the dialogue and

As mentioned, hapax legomena are words that are found only once or “a handful of times” in the Bible;

Alden, Job, 29.

Frederick E. Greenspahn, Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of the Phenomenon and Its

Treatment since Antiquity with Special Reference to Verbal Forms (1984, repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016),

44.

Andersen, Job, 62-65.

Clines, Readerly Questions, 122.

Lawson, Job, 17.

monologue sections, containing the longest recorded speeches in the Bible for God (38–42) and

Satan (1–2).

The rhetorical aspects combine with other literary considerations, reflecting the

author’s literary prowess.

Other Literary Considerations

Genre

Job is predominately considered poetry, and the wide range of grammatical forms and

literary devices typically found in poetry are present. Most of the book has “paired” lines of

“approximately the same length and complement.”

Job is more aptly classified using the term

sui generis.

Sui generis is Latin for “anything that is peculiar to itself, of its own kind or class;”

this term “denotes an independent legal classification.”

Some Joban sections are associated

with the genres of lament, cursing, wisdom literature, and legal disputation.

Author

The author of Job is unknown, and the Bible provides few clues to a possible time frame

for authorship. The proposed dates range from the IP back to the time of the Patriarchs. Proposed

authors include Job, Moses, Solomon, and Ezra, or the author may be an unknown historical

character.

Job could have recorded his life, a text that is no longer extant if he did; however, the

more likely scenario is that versions of the oral tradition were recorded later and predate the

writing of Genesis. Alternatively, the Talmud supports Mosaic authorship for a portion of the

Alden, Job, 29.

Ibid., 28.

Edward L. Greenstein, “Truth or Theodicy? Speaking to the Power in the Book of Job,” PrincSB 27, no.

3 (2006): 242; Lawson, Job, 14.

Legal Information Institute, s.v. “sui generis,” Cornell Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/

sui_generis.

Lawson, Job, 16-7.

text, and the claim is unchallenged in that corpus, but the “use of Job 11:9 in Erub. 21a may

presuppose an idea of Joban authorship.”

Michael Wogman advocates that the shared

theophanic experiences of Moses and Job would have shaped Moses’ frame of mind as the Joban

author.

The supposition that Job lived between the times of Joseph and Moses seems likely if

adhering to the literal interpretation of there being no one like Job in the world. A small overlap

in the lifespans of Job and Moses is possible since Moses was unaware of his Hebrew lineage

and was not a righteous man for a time. The likelihood, though, is that Job passed away before

Moses. Moses’ escape to Midian likely brought him into contact with Job’s story.

Moses fled

Egypt (Exod 2:14-15) and traveled southwest across the Sinai Peninsula to Midian in southeast

Arabia. If Job resided in Edom or close to Damascus, which is only 60 miles north of Bozrah, it

is conceivable that people in Arabia could have heard of Job. Some were still semi-nomadic then

and traveled the King’s Road (also called the King’s Highway).

This ancient trade route turned

north at Aqaba at the top of the Midian territory, east of the Red Sea.

Several correlations, among many, lean toward Mosaic authorship. Both men had

intimate encounters with the Most High God and questioned the suffering and sinfulness of man.

Moses would have understood the full range of emotions from his own theophanic experiences

and be able to relay that same intensity through his writings. There are similarities in the

b. B. Bat. 14b:12; Eruv. 21a:14; The William Davidson Foundation, “Eruvin,” William Davidson ed.,

Sefaria, trans. Aiden Steinsaltz, https://www.sefaria.org/Eruvin?tab=contents; Michael Wogman, “Moses, Author of

Job: Defending the Biblical God in the Roman East,” JudUkr 2 (2013): 23.

Wogman, “Author of Job,” 24-5.

Note that Midian was the son of Keturah and Abraham (Gen 25:2).

Gertoux’s research includes a mapped representation of Edom and the King’s Road during patriarchal

times. The road headed north, past Aram, and south and west, above Midian. Gertoux’s rendering cites from the

New Bible Atlas. A similar rendering is found in the atlas; however, the page numbers are reflected differently;

Gertoux, “The Book of Job,” 6, 9; J. J. Bimson and J. P. Kane, New Bible Atlas (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity

Press, 1985), 28.

language used to manage the flow of time and dispensation of knowledge. Moses’ usage and

phrasing of the Hebrew term   ('ē𝑝ô, meaning “then, now, and so”) in Job (9:24; 17:15; 19:6,

23; 24:25) rings familiar in other Mosaic books (Gen 26:10; 27:3, 37; 43:11; Exod 33:16; Num

11:29).

With only sixteen uses in the MT, 69 percent occur in known Mosaic books and once

in a Solomonic book (Prov 6:3).

The other possible authors are Solomon and the prophet Ezra. Attributions to Solomon

come from his extensive writings in the genres of proverbs, lament, poetry, and wisdom, along

with his questions about justice. Andersen purports that a later author-date is proposed due to

“suspected quotations from … books, such as Deuteronomy or Isaiah,” and in reverse, he

considers that these “could be quotations from Job.”

The chance that Solomon influenced the

book during his time is possible. Perhaps there may have been several scribal versions or other

parts of the oral tradition that needed inclusion. The mention of Ezra has more to do with claims

of Job living in post-exilic times. Still, the absence of content on circumcision, tabernacle

worship, and the sacrificial system makes this unlikely. The difficulty is that so much of the book

is highly detailed regarding the main topics but vague on others.

Audience

Job is confirmed as a historical figure in the Old and New Testaments. The prophet

Ezekiel mentions him along with Noah and Daniel, testifying to their righteousness (Ezek 14:14,

20). In the NT, James recognizes “Job’s perseverance” (Ja 5:11). Paul quotes passages from the

book “in Romans 11:35 (Job 41:11) and in 1 Corinthians 3:19 (Job 5:13).”

Intertextually, his

BDB,  , 66.

Andersen, Job, 71.

Lawson, Job, 14.

audience spans the mid-exilic to post-resurrection books, but intratextually there is an ancient

tone.

Patriarchal and pre-Israelite audiences are suspected, using a variety of intertextual facts.

The author focuses on belief in the one true God, and the audience looks to believe the same.

Alden agrees, “This indicates that the speakers [in the story] lived before or beyond the influence

of the religion of Israel” since “there is no hint of polytheism; in fact, there are strong

suggestions against it.”

In chapter one, Job also acts as the priest for his household, offering

burnt sacrifices for his family. This is an indication that the story predates the time of Moses.

The Levitical system has not been enacted, and some scholars hold that any Deuteronomistic

overtones were added later unintentionally by Solomon or others. Persistent usage of OT

metaphors concerning nature, creation, and justice is dominant. These are metaphors that are

active in every generation and locality. Man has interacted with these metaphorical subjects since

the beginning of creation, and God has made his interests known; studying them means studying

God.

Earthly Characters

The Wife of Job

The wife of Job is an obscure unnamed character in the OT, and her literary contributions

to the story are minimal. She receives far less attention in the HB than the šāṭān, Job’s friends,

and the observer, Elihu. The LXX (2:9a-e) and the T. Job (5:1–6:18) supply additional details of

Lawson, Job, 15-7.

Alden, Job, 33.

how the losses may have affected her life. Several schools of thought have emerged, raising

questions that are not easily answered.

Thousands of years have passed, and scholars are still enthralled with this woman and her

role in the story of Job. Studying various translations and extrabiblical texts leaves one to ponder

this character’s spiritual teaching, pragmatic declarations, and far-reaching implications. Much is

assumed from the limited verses in the text that mention her and imply her continued presence in

Job’s life (2:9-10; 19:17; 31:10; 42:11). The exploration of early Christian and Jewish writings

reveals that she is cast as a negative persona, receiving much criticism.

When viewed negatively, the wife is mainly aligned with the Joban šāṭān and the

emergent NT Satan as an extension of these personas to torture and tempt Job further. Separated

by centuries, Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430) referred to her as the diaboli adjutrix, meaning

“help meet or accomplice of the devil,” and John Calvin (1509–1564) called her the organum

Satani, meaning “Satan’s tool.”

100

Some modern authors, like David Shepherd, use “tool” and

instrument of Satan as a way to describe her relationship to evil without any reference to

Calvin.

101

John Chrysostom (AD 347–407) appeals to God, saying, “If only you had buried her

with her children,” because he believes Job’s wife was spared to compound Job’s anguish,

There are several primary questions at play: (1) Is she a devious character that lacks spiritual fortitude

and shows little concern for the misery of her husband? (2) Is she a distressed figure, who is a victim of a patriarchal

society that disregards the intense suffering she endures daily? (3) Did she die of a broken heart and spirit? and, (4)

If so, did a new wife bear Job children and reap the benefits of restoration?

100

John Calvin’s characterization of Job’s wife as “Satan’s tool” could not be found in an open-source

English translation of Calvin’s Sermons on Job; however, several published citations exist for this phrase. See

Clines, Job 1-20, 51; A facsimile of one of two published French translations is open source; Jean Calvin, Sermons

de M. Jean Calvin sur Le Livre de Job, Recueillis Fidèlement de Sa Bouche Selon Qu’il Les Preschoit: Avec Deux

Tables, L’une des Passages de Exposez et Alleguez, L’autre des Principales Matières (Genève: Matthieu Berjon,

1611).

101

David Shepherd, “‘Strike His Bone and His Flesh’: Reading Job from the Beginning,” JSOT 33, no. 1

(2008): 81.

calling her “the last bitter drop of his cup of suffering.”

102

The interchange between the couple

rabbinically connects her with other OT women, being labeled as a “temptress” like Eve and

“foolish” like Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah (Gen 30:21).

103

The T. Job relays that Job’s

first wife passed away, and his second set of children were born of Dinah (T. Job 1:6).

Eliphaz the Temanite

Eliphaz is thought to be a descendant of Esau and hails from a city or region known as

Teman in Edom. The Joban Eliphaz is likely the grandson of Teman, the son of the first Eliphaz

in Genesis.

104

He interprets יִנָמיק ַה זַפי ִלֱא ('ĕlî𝑝az hatêmānî) as “‘Eliphaz the one of Teman,’ which

could be understood as either ‘Eliphaz the descendant of Teman’ or ‘Eliphaz the man of Teman

(city).’”

105

Over time, the city of Teman became known for its collective wisdom, which was

eventually lost (Jer 49:7; Obad 1:8). For this and other reasons, Teman and Bozrah are two

Edomite cities that Yahweh later identified for judgment and destruction (Jer 49:20; Ezek 25:13;

Amos 1:12; Obad 1:9), both of which are possible municipal locations for Job.

Bildad the Shuhite

The text clarifies Bildad’s ancestry by linking him to the Shuhites, and this connection

may reveal where he was from.

106

In Genesis 25:2, Shuah is listed as one of the sons of Abraham

102

This translation was derived from Chrysostom’s commentary discussing the perversity of Job’s wife,

and he addresses God, saying, “Si seulement tu lui avais pris cette femme, si seulement tu l’avais ensevelie avec ses

enfants!”; Jean Chrysostome, Commentaire sur Job, I (Chapitres I-XIV), trans. Henri Sorlin (Paris, France: Éditions

du Cerf, 1988): 175.

103

Stephen J. Vicchio, The Book of Job: A History of Interpretation and a Commentary (Eugene, OR: Wipf

& Stock, 2020), 59.

104

The Joban character, Eliphaz the Temanite, should not be confused with Eliphaz, the first born son of

Esau and Adah (Gen 36:10, 15). According to Rashi, Esau sent the first Eliphaz to kill Jacob, Esau’s brother, when

he fled to Haran to stay with their uncle, Laban (Gen 29:11 HB); Gertoux, “The Book of Job,” 5; A. J. Rosenburg,

trans., “The Complete Tanakh (Tanach) - Hebrew Bible: The Jewish Bible with Modern English Translation and

Rashi’s Commentary,” Chabad, https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-

Rashi.htm.

105

Gertoux, 5.

106

Alden, Job, 56.

and Keturah. However, the etymology of Bildad’s name is “speculative” at best since his name

appears in only one biblical book.

107

Josephus confirms that one of the areas where Abraham’s

“sons and grand-sons” settled was “the country of Arabia the Happy, as far as it reaches to the

Red Sea.”

108

Josephus’ translation of this area’s Latin name, Arabia Felix, represents the

southern, most fertile area of the Arabian Peninsula, and this was the location of the Shuhites.

Zophar the Naamathite

Little is known about Zophar’s lineage and the city or region of Naamath, other than that

it is possibly in Arabia. Like Bildad, his name is referenced only in the book of Job.

109

Naamath

has an etymological meaning of “pleasant,” which is interesting as the Shuhites lived in an area

described as “happy” and also ironic, as Zophar comes across as being the most unpleasant of the

three friends in his dealings with Job.

110

Elihu, The Observer

Elihu is introduced as “the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram” at the

beginning of Job 32 and not when the friends arrive earlier in the story (2:11; 32:3). Rashi

connects Ram directly to Abraham because he associates the land of Uz being in the region of

Aram instead of Edom.

111

As previously mentioned, Aram is in Northern Mesopotamia, named

after Aram, the son of Shem, who was Noah’s son; Aram had two sons, Uz and Buz.

112

107

Alden, Job, 56; Robert Laird Harris connects Bildad to Shuah, the son of Keturah, one of Abraham’s

wives (Gen 25:2); R. Laird Harris, “The Book of Job and Its Doctrine of God,” GTJ 13, no. 3 (1972): 6.”

108

The Greeks were made aware of a “Happy City,” from the Semitic name for this region that translated to

“fecund, fertile, happy.” They called it Εύδαίμων Αραβία (Eudaimon Arabia) and the Romans later translated these

words into Latin. The other two regions were named: (1) Arabia Deserta, which was in the central part of the

peninsula and (2) Arabia Petraea, which was at the top of the peninsula, north of the Felix. The Shuhites lived in the

southern part of the peninsula, which is now modern Yemen; Josephus, A.J. I, q.15, a. 1 (Whiston); Jan Retsö,

“Where and What Was ‘Arabia Felix’?” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 30 (2000): 189-92.

109

Alden, 56.

110

Ibid.

111

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 1:1; 32:2.

112

Ibid.

Barachel is descended from the Buz mentioned in Genesis 22, this makes Elihu a descendant of

Nahor I, the brother of Abraham (Gen 22:20-23).

113

R. Laird Harris (1911-2008) confirms that

“Elihu … belonged to the clan headed by the brother” of Uz, but it is unclear where Barachel

falls genealogically to firmly place him or his son in the same timeline as Job and his friends.

114

Perhaps this is why none of the friends responded to Elihu’s speeches or interrupted him

since he may have held a more significant position in religious society than their own due to his

familial ties to the first and greatest patriarch. This begs the question of why Elihu was sent in

the first place and if this has any bearing on his speeches. In ANE naming traditions, Elihu could

be the son or grandson of Barachel. He may be the leader of his clan if Barachel has already

passed away or the clan leader could not make the arduous trip for some reason. Some scholars

choose the least path of resistance to explain Elihu’s presence and arguments by dismissing the

legitimacy of his speeches as later additions and claiming the Joban author did not write them.

115

The mystery surrounding this character, coupled with the reactions of the other visitors, prompts

further inquiries into their responses to Job’s plight.

Theological Analysis

The theological setting of Job shows that the characters are unified in their consistent

belief in God, and by using his sovereignty as a theological framework, the author can shape

diverse theological messages. The development of theological themes is rooted in the meanings

113

Gertoux, “The Book of Job,” 5.

114

Harris, “Doctrine of God,” 6. Note that the abbreviated “R” in Harris’ name does not indicate he is a

rabbi.

115

Ragnar Andersen gives a brief history on the theory of Elihu’s speeches being interpolations, which

originated with Johann Gottfried Eichhorn “in the late 1780s,” followed by Matthias Heinrich Stuhlmann in 1804.

Stuhlmann rhetorically criticizes “der Dichter” (the poet) believing the author could have left Job’s issues to be

resolved by the elders instead of adding the younger Elihu and his speeches; Ragnar Andersen, “The Elihu

Speeches: Their Place and Sense in the Book of Job,” TynBul 66, no. 1 (2015): 77; Matthias Heinrich Stuhlmann,

Hiob: Ein religiöses Gedicht: Aus Dem Hebräischen Neu übersetzt, Geprüft Und Erläutert (Hamburg: Fr. Perthes,

1804), 40-1; Other scholars that favor interpolation will be discussed in Chapter Six.

of theodicy and theophany, perpetuating the theocentric nature of the story. The dialogic nature

of the characters’ interactions offers a glimpse into dogmatic systems rooted in their belief in

God and how he legislates everything in the world. Each character operates within their

knowledge of God’s sovereignty and how they view its application.

Sovereignty as a Theological Framework

The overriding piece of the theological framework that keeps the book of Job intact is the

sovereignty of God and Job’s theocratic response, despite his inability to separate God from

religious dogma. Job ordered his life in a theocratic manner, which was governed by recognizing

God’s supremacy. When Job was attacked and suffered the loss of his livestock, his servants, and

his children, Job “fell to the ground and worshiped” God, recognizing that he has the supreme

authority to give and to take away (1:20-21). In response to Bildad’s claim that he or his children

deserved what had happened due to their sinfulness or wrongdoing, he confirms that God can do

as he pleases, is above being questioned, and is not obligated to respond (9:1-12).

Job’s desire to make his case before God and hear directly from the Divine does not

discount his claims (40:4-5; 42:2-6). He looks at creation and nature and sees examples of God’s

goodness. Job’s situation becomes so extreme as the story progresses that everyone around him

is confronted with how to make sense of these tragedies. How does God’s sovereignty fit into the

evil that has been perpetrated on Job’s family and the unbearable suffering of his situation?

Theodicy

A theodicy is the vindication of divine goodness and the justice of God, juxtaposed

against the evil in the world and the suffering of humanity. Job, his wife, and his friends

experience the presence of these things. Most accept this summation, but not all. Steven Lawson

believes that the subject of theodicy applies to the story, while Andersen says, “Job is not such a

treatise, but the story of one man, his loss, his search and his discovery.”

116

Job’s experience has

something to say about theodicy and God’s person. The narrative is not just a moral story with a

happy ending for the hero; it is part of the Bible and injects wisdom and power into the sum of its

parts.

The presence of evil in the book of Job is often defined by the presence of Satan as the

opponent to all that is holy and righteous. Job is considered righteous, and Satan feels that God

orchestrates his righteousness. Evil is reflected in the words of Satan against Job, the bargain he

wishes to strike with God, and the things he is willing to do to turn Job’s world upside down. In

contrast, God is set apart from what is happening; he permits Satan to commit evil acts.

Lawson defines theodicy as “the attempt to defend God’s involvement in man’s calamity by

showing that he is not responsible for evil.”

117

God does not need vindication, but this story partially performs that function. God’s

sovereignty is best explained by understanding the theological attributes that define and fuel

Job’s conclusion; God’s ways are beyond man’s understanding. The consciousness that comes

from accepting God’s rule in the face of human limitations creates awe for God’s authority,

wisdom, and power. The truth is that anyone can suffer; in fact, everyone will suffer. The

theological concepts of retribution and justice can come to bear at any time, and so can God’s

presence.

Theophany

Humanity is not left to its own devices because God is present even when he seems

absent. Man must choose to think and act from a theocratic system of belief when the visible

116

Lawson, Job, 21; Andersen, Job, 72.

117

Lawson, 325.

signs and results of sin and suffering are revealed. God can manifest his presence during these

times in many ways. Few are meant to physically see God, like in the burning bush with Moses,

or later, on Mount Sinai (Exod 19:20; 33:18–34:8). Job implores God for an audience (31:35),

for which he is quite unprepared. Job is righteous and worships God, and his theophanic

experience challenges him to move toward knowing God better. For a long time, God was silent

and did not answer him. In Job 38–41, God appears as a mighty whirlwind, a natural element that

Job can comprehend, but God’s awesomeness is not contained by it.

Theological motifs and divine attributions in the book showcase God’s superiority

through man’s inferiority. Motifs are central to introducing and affirming God’s superior nature.

Is the book only about sin, suffering, retribution, patience, and perseverance? The answer is a

resounding “No!” Humphreys Zgambo and Angelo Nicolaides believe that the book of Job is

“the primary paradigm for understanding theodicy and applying theocracy in context of suffering

in the world.”

118

This type of statement is not meant to place any limitations upon the intended

message of God through the author, the characters, or any of the Joban arguments. The intention

is to explore God’s person, who is above and beyond Job’s situation, and God’s involvement,

which is to grow Job’s faith and wisdom through his interactions with Job’s world.

Contextual Synopsis

This chapter establishes contextual baselines for more advanced discussions and

conclusions, representing the same multi-layered and multifunctional interactions seen

throughout the book of Job. The geohistorical content merges with the brief genealogical survey

to produce analyses that acknowledge the diversity of scholarship through an array of biblical

and extrabiblical connections.

118

Zgambo and Nicolaides, “A Brief Exposition,” 2.

Despite the lack of typical historical, geographical, and genealogical markers in the text,

the research on the principal foci is undergirded by the fact that Uz was a real place that grew

into an expansive region settled and populated by the descendants of Noah. The children of the

ark became the children of the East, and from them, God set aside a chosen group who became

his covenantal children. The geographical and genealogical connections lend weight to Job and

the other characters as real people.

Contextual layering through the introductory analyses is similar to the Joban text. The

literature analysis highlights its complex structure and composition. The literary layering of the

content and context consistently keeps the principal foci at the forefront, no matter how the

balanced structure of the chapters is divided, leading to an explanation of the theological

framework. The literary structure fosters exploration of and engagement with the book’s vivid

characters, their origins and identities, their positions and postures, and the basis of their views

on sovereignty amid the dogma surrounding retribution and human suffering.

CHAPTER THREE: THE ORIGIN AND IDENTITY OF SATAN

The battle between good and evil is at the heart of most biblical and secular stories due to

the predictability of human behavior and the presence of a villain. Simply stated, there are good

people, and there are bad people. Views become more diverse when discussions move beyond

humanity to entertain the existence of extra-terrestrial beings and influences like angels, demons,

spirits, and a myriad of other creatures identified in literature and by oral tradition. Strong beliefs

solidify manufactured realities, leading to the creation and acceptance of perceptions that may be

contrived but contain an element of truth; this historically applies to secular and religious beliefs.

Biblical history portrays Satan as a somewhat divisive literary figure that moves from

enigmatic representations in the OT to being the focal point of God’s ultimate justice in

Revelation. Ancient Hebrew and Jewish texts are more descriptive of this type of literary

character, including OT pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha, and Rabbinic literature. These literary

collections supply a broader context for the existence and development of Satan that would likely

have been understood by the book’s original audience with little explanation.

The exploration of the Scriptures associated with satanic figures reinforces biblical

teaching on the identity, organization, and deployment of celestial beings. Most OT references to

   (śāṭān) concern terrestrial beings and not “a particular member of the heavenly court.”

the nine OT references to śāṭāns, five are humans, and four are divine.

Biblical, midrashic, and

Stokes acknowledges the diverse beliefs about satanic representations in the OT; however, he states that

the śāṭān “appeared” to be a member of the “court;” Ryan E. Stokes, “The Devil Made David Do It… or ‘Did’ He?

The Nature, Identity, and Literary Origins of the ‘Satan’ in 1 Chronicles 21:1,” JBL 128, no. 1 (Spring, 2009): 92,

94.

Satanic references in the OT refer to humans (1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:17-24; 1 Kgs 11:14-26; Ps 109:1-6)

and divine beings (Num 22:22-35; 1 Chron 1:1; Job 1: 6-12; 2:1-8; Zech 3:1-2); Shawna Dolanksy, “How the

Serpent in the Garden Became Satan,” BAS, August 2, 2023, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-

topics/bible-interpretation/how-the-serpent-in-the-garden-became-satan/.

linguistic comparisons are integral to defining the adversarial roles in the OT that elevated Satan

to a place of NT prominence.

The persecutory figure in Job serves a specific purpose, and his appearance is limited to

the first two chapters. He is not meant to portray the Satan of later biblical writings and Jewish

stories. Garnering background information from various sources about satanic identities and their

interactions with humans and God will help to clarify the role of this figure and his arguments.

Casting a wide net broadens the scope to adequately identify the underlying context of ancient

views on the origin of evil, suffering in the world, and the role and impact of satanic figures.

The Rise of Satan in Judaism

In Judaism, Satan rises from obscurity to prevalence. The Satan of the OT evolves into a

more pronounced figure in the NT, beginning with a “bland” representation of certain behaviors

and later becoming the archenemy of Jesus and his followers.

T. J. Wray and Gregory Mobley

acknowledge, “It is in the existential struggle of good versus evil that the embodiment of evil, a

character named Satan, emerges. Satan fell to earth from the pages of the Bible.”

Satan, as the

proper name for a single spirit, does not appear to be the original focal point of all that is evil and

the primary cause of human suffering. His rise had contributory influences that expanded literary

descriptions of his increased activities. The idea of God as a supreme being was also literarily

influenced over time, giving rise to the belief of dualism.

John G. Gammie, “The Angelology and Demonology in the Septuagint of the Book of Job,” HUCA 56

(1985): 1, 18-9; See also Derek R. Brown, “The Devil in the Details: A Survey of Research on Satan in Biblical

Studies,” CurBR 9, no. 2 (2011): 205.

T. J. Wray and Gregory Mobley, Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots (New York, NY:

Palgrave MacMillan, 2005), 5.

Dualism

Dualism is widespread in ANE religions, and the Jews were swayed by pluralistic and

polytheistic groups living in their midst and surrounding nations. Controversial discussions

center around how much the HB was affected by these cultures and the inconsistent portrayal of

the NT Satan in OT writings. The development of Satan and evil is enlightened by further

investigating biblical and extra-biblical beliefs in the ANE, the HB, and the NT. Gleaned

information will provide valuable insights into the identity of the adversary in Job, his role in

perceived retribution, and his contribution to Job’s suffering.

Any investigation of dualistic systems within the OT context includes good and evil,

heaven and earth, and Satan and God.

Historical commentary on the book of Job consistently

highlights this topic. Norman Snaith claims, “There is a natural Hebrew development, both of

Satan and of dualism, as the problem of evil and suffering steadily grows more acute, but both

were reinforced by the dualism and the demonology of the farther East.”

Tracing the use of

satans as mere functionaries that exist within the realm of God to the Satan that “rules the

counter-kingdom of evil” proves enlightening since Job is a piece of wisdom literature with

apocalyptic leanings.

Midrashic comparisons confirm and dispute aspects of dualism and expose

the thin line of reasoning between the divine and corporeal worlds that led many Jews astray.

John G. Gammie, “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature,” JBL 93,

no. 3 (September, 1974): 357-9; William R. Murdock, “History and Revelation in Jewish Apocalypticism,”

Interpretation 21, no. 2 (1967): 174, 176-7; James H. Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS

III, 13-IV, 26 and the ‘Dualism’ Contained in the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 15, no. 4 (1969): 389.

Snaith, Gammie, Murdock, and Charlesworth are among scholars that classify dualism found in Jewish

wisdom and apocalyptic literature (e.g., ethical, psychological, cosmological, and prophetic). Dualistic aspects

branch out beyond biblical texts to the DSS and ANE writings. Murdock explores dualism; however, his

contributions are limited. He believes that the falls of Satan and Man (Gen 3) are myths; Norman H. Snaith, The

Book of Job (London, England: The Epworth Press, 1945), 18; Gammie, “Spatial and Ethical Dualism,” 357-9.

Snaith, Job, 17; There will be three uses for the term “satan” in Chapter Three. The use of śāṭān will

relate to the formal representation of good and evil celestial beings who are acting from an adversarial position.

Other variations may be used interchangeably (e.g., haśśāṭān and lǝśāṭān). The lowercase “satan” will be used for

terrestrial beings and in general reference to adversarial figures. The proper name of Satan will refer to the śāṭān of

the NT, who is of a higher substance than most śāṭāns/satans of the OT.

Dualism, in simplest form and definition, can be discussed from a literary and

hypothetical perspective; however, to imply that Satan is a supreme and sovereign power directly

opposite of God is false. The allotment of equal power and authority to God and Satan espouses

pluralism, perpetuates a form of polytheism, and supposes that dualism can be approached in an

“absolute,” “radical,” or relative fashion.

Aspects of dualism can be present in monotheistic

religions, like Judaism and Christianity, even when represented or practiced in a specific or

abstract manner. Absolute practice necessitates a belief that everything in existence began with

two beings, like the Persian monotheistic religions of “Manichaeism” and “Zoroastrianism,” and

relative practice permits a relative relationship where one ultimate deity exists and one is in

subjugation to the other.

As is the case with Persian influence, the existence and position of

Satan and evil were affected by ANE thought.

In ANE Settings

The generations to follow Adam and Noah are not to be confused with the Israelites and

the later classification of Jews; they are a unique people. Mark Smith defines the initial position

of Israel in four ways: (1) “Israel’s ethnic identity was originally separate from other peoples;”

(2) Israel originated from the east and was not native to Canaan; (3) “Cultic objects” were

foreign to them; and, (4) “Yahweh was the only deity.”

After the Jews became God’s chosen

people, the constant spiritual battle against syncretism raged due to the predominant religious

The formulaic idea of dualism is the opposition between “two principals,” with the “formula” including

“judgement based on moral values (good/evil) and a hierarchical organization of reality at all levels: cosmological,

anthropological, ethical, etc.;” Lucia Afloroaei, “Religious Dualism: Some Logical and Philosophical Difficulties,”

JIRRS 4 (January, 2009): 83, 85; See also Ugo Bianchi, Selected Essays on Gnosticism, Dualism and Mysteriosophy

(Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1978), 1-3, 10.

Afloroaei, “Religious Dualism,” 91, 93.

Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2nd ed.

(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002), 3-4.

and cultural influences of “Mesopotamia, Canaan, Egypt, Persia, and Greece.”

The encounters

with other religions must have been overwhelming due to the number of deities, terrifying

anthropomorphic beings, and strange cultic practices. This study does not promote extensive

copying from ANE traditions and texts in the OT, but its influence upon the Jewish view of

Satan is evident.

Neil Forsyth sees Satan as a figure with diverse “origins (as king of this world, angelic

ruler of Hell, heroic warrior, and serpentine tempter), all brought uneasily together in one figure”

that aligns Satan with demonic representations from ANE myths.

The constant battles with

mysterious gods, demons, and the netherworld contributed to perceived physical attributes and

spiritual concepts about Satan and the heavenly hosts. Several examples of ancient religious

myths support this supposition.

Three demonic examples from the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh are Humbaba, the

Bull of Heaven, and Enki.

First, Humbaba (also known as Huwawa) is a “monstrous ...cosmic

border” sentry that guarded the Cedar Forest and opposed Gilgamesh and Ekidnu, the heroes of

the Epic (Figure 3.1).

Humbaba has folds on his face that look like human intestines, “his teeth

are [like] dragon’s fangs, his countenance is like a lion,” and “his look … crushes alike the trees

of the forest and the reeds of the swamp.”

Second, the Bull of Heaven descends upon the earth

Wray and Mobley, Birth of Satan, 75.

Neil Forsyth, The Satanic Epic (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 25; For a broader

overview of ANE connections, see also Neil Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth (Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press, 1987).

This collection of Sumerian poems dates to c. 2100 BC, and the only complete copy found in Babylonia

dates to the twelfth century BC. Stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh influenced societies and may have influenced

biblical texts, whether through authorship or by redaction; The British Museum, “Mask of the demon Humbaba,” c.

1800–1600 BC, British Museum, Iraq, 3.31 x 3.25 in., fired clay, (Image), https://www.britishmuseum.org/

collection/object/W_1883-0118-AH-2598.

Wray and Mobley, 77.

N. K. Sandars, trans. The Epic of Gilgamesh: An English Version with an Introduction, rev. ed. (1960,

repr., London, England: Penguin Group, 1972), 80.

Figure 3.1: Clay Mask of the Demon Humbaba (1800–1600 BC),

excavated by Hormudz Rassam in Sippur, Iraq and housed at the

British Museum (England). © The Trustees of the British Museum,

Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1883-0118-

AH-2598.

to wreak havoc by the Euphrates and to battle humans by administering the retribution of the

gods to inflict harm or cause suffering. He “spew[s] his spittle in front of him” and flings “dung

behind him.”

The sound of his snorts causes the earth to quake and fissures in the ground to

open.

Third, Enki (also known as Ea) is another evil character in this story and other ANE

myths. Like the Rabbinic Satan, he is a “trickster” and holds a similar position to that of the

Joban “hassatan’s role in the divine court of Yhwh.”

Satan is also represented in the form and

behavior of animals, such as a wolf who “snatches” and “scatters” sheep (John 10:12), a lion that

Maureen Gallery Kovacs, trans., The Epic of Gilgamesh (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989),

55.

Ibid.

Wray and Mobley, Birth of Satan, 77-8.

prowls around and seeks to devour Christians (1 Pet 5:8), and a great dragon or serpent “from

old” (Rev 12:9; 20:2).

El is the creator and supreme deity associated with Yahweh in Canaanite lore, and he has

two sons. Mot is an evil god of the underworld who battles against his brother, Baal, who is

portrayed as benevolent and good. Mot lives in a dark place like the realm of Satan. Satan is

referred to as the prince of darkness because he has been given “elemental powers of earth and

air, personal agencies of a dark supernatural world which is antagonistic to God.”

Mot is known

as the “god of death,” and Satan, the “angel of death.”

Another “netherworld demon” from this

pantheon, Habayu, “sports horns (often a symbol of power in the ancient world) and a tail,”

which are later additions to Satan’s physical features.

Persia, Egypt, and Greece are awash with examples. The “evil spirit,” Ahriman, and his

assistant, Aheshma, the “demon of wrath,” battle against Ahura Mazda, who leads a heavenly

court in a Persian myth.

This story shows that demons work in concert, much like Satan leads

his demonic horde.

In Egypt, there is an epic struggle between Osiris (a good god) and his

brother, Seth (an evil god). Both Seth and Satan are reportedly red. The wife of Osiris is Isis, and

she is often pictured wearing horns. The “jackal-headed” judge with pointed, dark facial features

from the Egyptian underworld is named Anpu.

Likewise, Satan is depicted with chiseled

cheekbones and jawline, with his face being almost mask-like. Finally, Greek gods, goddesses,

and demons have “dichotomistic nature[s] … such as Hermes, Pan, and Hades.”

Hermes is “a

Snaith, Job, 17.

b. B. Bat. 16a:8.

Wray and Mobley, Birth of Satan, 81.

Ibid., 85-6.

Ibid., 107; Snaith, 17; Lewis M. Hopfe and Mark R. Woodward, Religions of the World, 9th ed. (Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005), 224-6.

Wray and Mobley, 82.

Ibid., 88.

winged god, … his son,” Pan, is “a hairy, goatlike creature with hooves,” “horns,” and a tail, and

Hades can become invisible and move about “unseen” (Figure 3.2).

These physical and

conceptual likenesses present strong parallels to depictions of Satan.

Figure 3.2: Reclining Pan (c. 1560-70), sculpted in marble by Francesco da Sangallo in Rome, Italy.

Currently housed at the St. Louis Art Museum (USA). https://www.slam.org/collection/objects/

36954/.

These pantheons represent the emergent disdain and disregard for sovereign rulers. The

resulting confrontations play out in the heavens and on earth, causing suffering to divine and

human beings through retributive acts under distributive justice. The storylines often include

bestowals of power from whoever serves as the supreme being, but none of the sovereigns are

immutable or infallible.

Wray and Mobley, Birth of Satan, 88-9; Public Domain image; Francesco da Sangallo, “Reclining Pan,”

c. 1560-70, St. Louis Art Museum, Italy, 25 x 52 ¾ x 23 ¼ in., marble, https://www.slam.org/collection/objects/

36954/.

In the Hebrew Bible

The śāṭāns are depicted as terrestrial and celestial beings in nine Hebrew passages,

classifying each portrayal as an “adversary,” “accuser,” and/or a stumbling block.

The

references are divided into two groups, and four of the five references in group one are related to

stories about David and Solomon (1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:17-24; Ps 109:1-6; 1 Kgs 11:14-26).

These four passages mention human satans, which arise from organic circumstances and

situations that are driven by human thoughts and actions:

• 1 Samuel 29:4 – Saul is pursuing David, who takes refuge among the Philistines and

fights alongside them against their enemies. The Philistines perceive that David could

become a stumbling block from a military perspective if he fights with them against

Israel.

• 2 Samuel 19:17-24 – David responds to a satan named Abishai, portrayed as a legal

“adversary,” who advises the king to kill a man for disloyalty to the throne.

• Psalm 109:1-6 – Multiple human accusers persecute an unknown person, “a man of

prayer,” by spreading lies about him despite the man’s extended friendship and

affection (109:4 NIV).

• 1 Kings 11:14-26 – This passage of Scripture differs from the previous three verses.

God raises adversaries against Solomon from within Israel (Jeroboam, 11:26) and

outside its borders (Hadad the Edomite, 11:14-22; Rezon the Zobahite, 11:23-25)

because of his polytheistic worship practices.

Alden, Job, 33.

These earthly adversaries demonstrated the Judaistic functions of satans from military, legal, and

relational perspectives and were part of God’s will at one time or another. If not by faith, then by

appointment.

The final depiction in the first group is a celestial protector and messenger who acts as an

adversary against Balaam, the son of Beor and a person of ANE renown.

Balaam is represented

as “a stranger, foreign to Israel;” however, “he acts like an Israelite seer, even like a prophet

bound to the word of YHWH.”

Numbers 22:22-35 tells the paradoxical story of Balaam’s

hindered trip to Moab due to the intervention of a talking ass and an angel. The first paradox in

this passage is that Balaam says he is beholden to Yahweh in speech and actions but is not a holy

man of God (22:9, 13, 18). The second paradox is that the ass wants to obey and is considered

wantonly disobedient by Balaam because she avoids the sword-bearing angel that blocks their

path (22:29-30). Lastly, God ordains Balaam’s journey, and then he sends the angel to hinder it

(22:20, 22). When revealed, Balaam learns that the angel has “come out as an adversary

because” he left for Moab too quickly (Num 22:32).

The function of the celestial being as “a literal obstacle or stumbling block” for Balaam

and the donkey shows that a śāṭān is “always a character of opposition,” whether motivated by

good or evil.

The term śāṭān is somewhat benign in most of the OT references, with humans

Balaam is featured prominently in the OT (Num 22–24; 31:8, 16; Deut 23:4-6; Josh 24:9-10; Neh 13:2;

Micah 6:5), the NT (2 Pet 2:16; Jude 11; Rev 2:14), other Jewish works (Mishnah, Tosefta, the Babylonian and

Palestinian Talmuds, Midrashim, the Targumim, Qumran, Apocrypha, and pseudepigrapha), and on plaster artifacts

with Aramaic inscriptions found at Tell Deir 'Alla that date to the eighth century BC; See also George H. van

Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten, eds., The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and

Islam, TBN 11 (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2008); H. J. Franken, “Archaeological Evidence

Relating to the Interpretation of the Text,” in Aramaic Texts from Deir 'Alla, ed. J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij

(Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1976); Bruce Routledge, “Transjordan in the Eighth Century BCE,” in Archaeology

and History of Eighth-Century Judah, ANEM 23, ed. Zev I. Farber and Jacob L. Wright (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press,

2018), 147, 150.

Ed Noort, “Balaam the Villain: The History of Reception of the Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch and

the Former Prophets,” in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam,

TBN 11, ed. George H. van Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2008), 4.

Wray and Mobley, Birth of Satan, 58.

and celestials opposing someone or something. Scripture passages from the OT that use “Satan”

as an evil person or entity should not be interpreted as referring to the contemporary Satan.

Undefined characters play an adversarial role and display specific actions of obstruction when

exercising their judgment. Genesis 3 lends itself as a possible OT exception.

Satanic Attributions in the OT

The second group of four references are exclusively related to divine beings, based on

oral tradition and linguistic considerations, and may be attributed to Satan. Genesis 3 is not

included in the group and is mentioned here based on “common interpretation.”

There are

several possibilities for the identity of the serpent and its participation in the fall of Man.

Ibn

Ezra disputes claims that the serpent was Satan.

One Jewish commentator purports that Satan

polluted the serpent by entering its body.

R. Saadiah Gaon (AD 882–942) dismisses

anthropomorphic descriptions, stating that “neither the serpent nor Balaam’s ass spoke,” but that

an angel was the one who was speaking for both of them.

Contra Gaon, Ibn Ezra supports a

literal reading, believing God created a serpent that could talk and walk “upright.”

The

recounting of the Fall and the previous examples do not point to the NT Satan. The beings in the

Davidic, Solomonic, and Balaam stories were figures with defined human and celestial roles, and

they assumed additional positions and responsibilities as adversaries.

Wray and Mobley, Birth of Satan, 70.

Two references in the NT describe the Devil as a serpent (Rev 12:9; 20:2), but these are not conclusively

linked to Genesis 3; LAE 17:1-5; Wis 2:24, in the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS); New English

Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2009); Isaiah HaLevi Horovitz, “Torah

Shebikhtav: Torah Ohr” in Shney Luchot HaBrit (Shelah), trans. Eliyahu Munk (Amsterdam, 1698), 44,

https://www.sefaria.org/Shenei_Luchot_HaBerit?tab=contents.

Ibn Ezra, Genesis (Bereishit), 66.

Horovitz, “Torah Shebikhtav,” 44.

Ibn Ezra, 65.

Ibid., 66.

Conversely, the celestial beings in 1 Chronicles 1:1, Zechariah 3:1-2, and Job (1:6-12;

2:1-6) are portrayed only in singular roles as adversaries, accusers, and stumbling blocks. None

have a proper name, and many English translations assign “Satan” because of a linguistic

difference between groups one and two. Each spirit in group two is described as the adversary

(  , haśśāṭān or the śāṭān) as opposed to group one, which describes an adversary (   ,

lǝśāṭān). Using haśśāṭān adds specificity to evil acts, the identity of the sons of God, and the

recounting of heavenly assemblies. Celestial adversaries with proper names emerged between the

Old and New Testaments. The attribution in Genesis 3 does not align with group two or have the

same literary tenor or organization of either group; it is “merely… an interpretation.”

The need

to attribute OT references directly to Satan in English translations has more to do with the issues

of culpability and responsibility for evil in Judaism than establishing any specific role for him in

the Hebrew past.

Culpability Versus Responsibility

Ancient Jews did not look upon Satan as the originator of evil based on the HB; instead,

they sought out other avenues for culpability to explain the issues of evil and suffering.

Translators, scribes, and authors of sacred texts and Jewish extrabiblical writings tried to

distance God from his admissions and professed actions (Isa 45:7; 1 Chron 21:1). In Isaiah, God

asks, “Who forms light and creates darkness, who makes peace and creates evil;” and answers, “I

am the Lord, who makes all these” (45:7 HB). The action verbs are focused on origination (i.e.,

forms, makes, and creates). The NASB translation uses present participles containing the roots of

the same originating verbs, with two exceptions. The phrase “makes peace” is changed to

These Joban references and Zechariah 3:1-2 will be addressed in Chapter Four; Wray and Mobley, Birth

of Satan, 70.

“causing well-being,” and the word “evil” is replaced by “disaster.” A cause and a disaster imply

contributing factors as opposed to being a singular origination.

Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and rabbinic texts denote this type of authorial

behavior in pre- and post-exilic writings. In 1Q3:13-4:15, the author states that “greed,

falsehood, pride, deceit, hypocrisy, lust and all the other evils in the world” originate with “one

spirit” under the authority of God.

Other efforts include the shifting of culpability for the

introduction of sin to “Adam’s rejection of God’s will” (Gen 6:5) and the “evil … caused by the

yeṣer ha-ra, [the] ‘evil inclination’ in man” (Apoc. Ab. 26; T. Ash.1:6-9; 4 Ezra 8:56-60;

Bereishit Rab. 9).

The Mishnah Berakhot explains that Deuteronomy 6:5 relays, “‘With all your heart”

means with your two inclinations, with your good inclination and your evil inclination, both

of which must be subjugated to the love of God.”

Some writings put the onus of sin and the

presence of the evil inclination within man while others state that this comes from the “fallen

angels’ willful corruption of their freedom” (Gen 8:21; Piskei Tos. Ned. 62; 'Abot R. Nat. 16:1;

b. Sukkah 52a-b; En 6:1-6; Jub. 5:1-2).

Despite this, the two views are reconcilable. If God is the creator of all things, and Satan

or any fallen angel created by him is the originator of evil, then did he not, by default, create

Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison,” 393.

Ibid.; See G. H. Box, The Apocalypse of Abraham: Edited with a Translation from the Slavonic Text and

Notes, ed. W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box (London, England: MacMillan Company, 1919), 73-4; R. H. Charles,

“The Testament of Asher, The Tenth Son of Jacob and Zilpah,” in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs:

Translated from the Editor’s Greek Text and Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices (London, England: Adam

and Charles Black, 1908), 162-3.

The bold is the original translation from the scriptures with additional commentary in the regular font; m.

Ber. 9:5; Sefaria, “Mishnah Berekhot,” https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Berakhot?tab=contents.

Charlesworth, 393; The William Davidson Foundation, “Avot DeRabbi Natan,” William Davidson ed.,

trans. David Kasher, Sefaria, 2019, https://www.sefaria.org/Avot_D'Rabbi_ Natan?tab=contents; The William

Davidson Foundation, “Piskei Tosafot on Nedarim,” William Davidson ed., Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/

Piskei_Tosafot_on_Nedarim?tab=contents; The William Davidson Foundation, “Sukkah,” William Davidson ed.,

Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah?tab=contents.

evil? Perhaps God is saying through Isaiah that he is ultimately responsible because of his

sovereignty and immanence. Like the book of Job, the sovereignty of God is front and center in

the book of Isaiah. James Charlesworth reiterates that the author of Genesis believed that “God’s

supreme sovereignty causes him unconsciously to attribute the cause of all things, even evil, to

the ‘God of Israel.’” (Gen 3:24).

This is why some believe that scriptures have been changed to

put distance between God and evil acts so that he is relieved of moral culpability.

As part of a

broader discussion, is God bound by the moral standards set for His creation? After all, he is

only part of this world through his participation; he is not of this world. God is not culpable, and

yet he accepts responsibility.

The Cause of David’s Sin

Another illustration is the lexical comparison of 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 in

the HB and the NASB. The first of these verses explains that God was angry with Israel, and he

“moved” (HB) or “incited” (NASB) David to conduct a census. God speaks directly to David in

the HB, commanding him to “go count Israel and Judah” (2 Sam 24:1b). Contrasting the

corresponding verse in 1 Chronicles, Satan “arose upon” (HB) or “stood up against Israel”

(NASB), and he “moved” (HB) or “incited” (NASB) David to “count Israel” (NASB). Replacing

God with Satan is thought to be enough to distance God from causing David to sin. Definitive

use of the Devil in the OT does not lessen the culpability of God; it controls its advertisement. If

that was the sole intention of the replacement, the Chronicler was somewhat successful as the

average reader probably is unaware of God’s declaration in Isaiah, which would be a behavioral

expectation of a fallen angel.

Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison,” 393.

Wray and Mobley, Birth of Satan, 176.

The meaning of Satan “rising upon” or “standing up against Israel” implies judgment (1

Chron 21:1). Just as there are good and bad people, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) asserts that

there are “good … and bad angels,” the good “are related to the judgment of God … this is

different than those things done by wicked angels.”

Whether it is Satan or a particular unnamed

adversary, David’s culpability remains unchanged. In addition, the HB’s use of “moved” may be

viewed by readers as a less severe action compared with “incited” (NASB). Rashi determines

“moved” to mean “provoked,” and so the perception of a gentler word is inaccurate because

these words have the same connotation (Shmuel II 24:1).

Actually, neither God nor the

adversary caused David to sin because that predilection was already present.

Another character in the story is a prophet and adviser to King David named Joab. He

poses questions to help David, but he ignores Joab. The advisor recognizes David’s unholy

motivation and asks, “Why does the lord king delight in this thing?” (2 Sam 24:3), and in the

parallel verse, “Why does my lord seek this thing?” (1 Chron 21:3). Joab suspects that pride is

the motivation. He warns that “this would become guilt for Israel” (1 Chron 21:3d).

Unquestionably, the guilt of a king can become and exacerbate the guilt of a nation. For

example, consider how Solomon’s choice of wives and dabbling in polytheism contributed to the

dissolution of the united monarchy and its spiritual condition for future generations.

Some scholars, like Forsyth, remove God from the equation. He claims that in 1

Chronicles, “Satan … acts independently of divine permission. … Satan substitutes for God as

the agent provocateur in human affairs; indeed, he ceases to be an agent of God at all and acts on

his own initiative.”

The relevancy of Forsyth’s statement is misplaced in this scriptural

Vicchio, Job, 21.

Rosenberg, “The Complete Tanakh.”

Forsyth, Combat Myth, 121; See also Eva Marta Baillie, Facing the Fiend: Satan as a Literary Character

(Cambridge, England: The Lutterworth Press, 2014), 33; Boloje and Groenewald, “Yahweh’s Sovereignty,” 5.

comparison. Again, this is not the Devil from the NT; the scripture reveals nothing about the

adversary's motivation. An angel could have volunteered or been dispatched by God to exert

influence by him granting the authority to do so.

Angelic Participation

Augustine, Gregory the Great (AD 540–604), and Aquinas assert that celestial beings

have some authority over the corporeal world, and Aquinas believes that a “corporeal creature

must be moved by a spiritual creature.”

Yet God allows the temptation of David, and he accepts

responsibility for it, acknowledging that divine adversaries do not have unlimited authority.

Since they do not possess any omni-traits, adversaries operate within the allowed limitations of

free choice in alignment with humanity. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether all angels make their

own choices. In deference, one could argue that their design dictates their circumstances and

freedom since all are subject to the governance of God.

Despite allowances for satanic influence geared toward temptation, the outcome

depended on David’s choice. Eva Baillie reiterates that holistically, “Hebrew monotheism” is

“too strong to allow the existence of a powerful supernatural being in opposition to God.”

The

role of the adversary began as a largely nondescript being that acted as an extension of God’s

hand and his will. Some have participated in promoting his goodwill, and others have

perpetuated evil, even if its origin is undefined.

Augustine was the Bishop of Hippo in Algeria. Gregory the Great was also known as Gregory I, serving

as a pope of the Catholic Church from AD 590 until his death. Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican friar and priest

from Italy; Saint Thomas Aquinas, The Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2nd ed., trans. Fathers of the

English Dominican Province, New Advent, I, q. 110, a. 3, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/.

Baillie, Facing the Fiend, 34.

The Development of Satan in Judaism

In the Intertestamental and Second Temple Periods

Several questions about Judaistic beliefs concerning the origin of Satan may be answered

by studying literature and oral teaching from the four hundred years of Yahweh’s silence. The

literary collection of the Intertestamental Period (IP) includes more references to celestial beings

involved in suffering, sin, and the persecution of man, which greatly influenced the development

of Satan in the NT. This is partially due to linguistic changes made during the translation of the

Tanakh at that time.

When the LXX was written (third–first centuries BC), seventy-two “Greek-speaking

Jews” in Egypt translated the common noun of satan in Job 1–2 and Zechariah 3 as the proper

noun, Satan.

In reverse, they replaced the common Hebrew noun,   with “the common

noun,” διάβολος (diabolos, meaning “devil”), “but treated it as a proper name, Diabolos, that is,

‘Devil,’ not ‘a devil.’”

Furthermore, the Hebrew’s “Satan becomes Satanah” in Aramaic IP

literature.

The IP, lasting from 420 BC–AD 20, shifted toward prescriptive adversaries, laying

the groundwork for the Devil to emerge fully in the NT and become empowered by Second

Temple (ST) Judaism, practiced from 515 BC–AD 70.

The Second Temple Period (STP) overlapped with the IP and was fully instituted when

the Jews returned from Babylon to Jerusalem (538 BC). This tumultuous period in Jewish history

was characterized by the fall of Persia, Hellenism, the birth of the Pax Romana, the formation of

Henry Ansgar Kelly, Satan in the Bible, God’s Minister of Justice (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2018),

xii.

Ibid.; See Brown “The Devil in the Details,” 204.

Ibid.

Jewish sects, rebellions, and a significant increase in written material. Judaism was fractured,

and the Jews had no earthly king.

The institution of ST Judaism helped to hold the nation together and, at the same time,

exacerbated internal divisions. George Foot Moore (1851–1931) asserts, “The norms of belief

and practice were given in the two-fold law, ‘the Torah in writing’ and ‘the Torah orally

transmitted,’ which together constitute the unitary revelation, in all parts and every particular of

divine origin and authority.”

The mutual influence of the oral and written Torah is indisputable,

and the contribution of other Jewish literature before AD 200, when the Mishnah was written,

should not be disallowed. Tae Whoe Chung affirms, “The rabbinic materials indeed provide a

retrospective view of Jewish life and beliefs as far back as the fifth century B.C.”

Applicable Intertestamental and ST literature supported the development of Satan

through the production of canonical and non-canonical works. Understanding the rise of Satan is

aided by perspectives that originate in OT pseudepigrapha (OTP) and Apocrypha since they

intersect with OT passages. During the IP, these writings had different audiences; the first was a

collection of “sectarian” writings, and the second was written for all Jews.

The fanciful and

fearsome tales in these collections have been ignored and ridiculed because they can be seen as a

threat to the Bible and systematic theology. Jewish audiences, ancient scholars, and religious

leaders were better equipped to interact with these writings during their time, accepting the mix

of serious, anecdotal, and humorous storylines.

George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim, vol. 1

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927), 5.

Tae Whoe Chung, “The Development of the Concept of Satan in Old Testament and Intertestamental

Literature” (PhD diss., Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, 2000), 85.

Yehoshua M. Grintz and Joseph Dan, s.v. “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” Encyclopaedia Judaica,

2nd ed., vol. 2, ed. Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum (Detroit, MI: Thomas Gale, 2019), 260.

Valuable insights into the celestial world should be addressed. Dominic Zappia

challenges the idea that Satan was “viewed in the tradition[al] OT as an ambiguous member of

the divine council, a role played by any angel. … Outside the OT,    looks nearly the same in a

variety of documents composed by competing factions with differing ideologies (i.e., Essenes,

Pharisees, Christians, and Enochic followers).”

The Essenes were the Jewish sect thought to be

responsible for authoring, copying, and preserving literary works during this period. Surveying

OTP and Apocrypha (e.g., Enoch, Tobit, Jubilees, and the Testament of Job) yields ample

information on the names, traits, and organization of celestial characters within Judaism, and it

reveals linear parallels to the Bible, both culturally and metaphorically.

Fragments from the book of Enoch (c. early second century BC), the book of Tobit (c.

225–175 BC), and the book of Jubilees (150 BC) were found at Qumran.

These three books

were revered and “regarded as authoritative” scripture, with the books of Enoch and Jubilees

being accepted “on the same level as the Torah.”

The T. Job was less credible because of

internal contradictions to readily accepted biblical accounts. The value of these and other texts is

that they “shed new light on the demonology and angelology of Judaism,” according to Derek

Brown.

Dominic Zappia, “Demythologizing the Satan Tradition of Historical-Criticism: A Reevaluation of the

Old Testament Portrait of    in Light of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” SJOT 29, no. 1 (2015): 118-9.

The book of Enoch claims authorship by Enoch, a descendant of Adam, the son of Jared and father to

Methuselah (Gen 5:21-24). He is also mentioned in 1 Chronicles 1:3, Luke 3:37, Hebrews 11:5, and Jude 1:14.

There were twenty scrolls of Enoch located at Qumran. The book of Tobit is a deuterocanonical book of historical

and theological significance, with five scrolls found at Qumran. The book of Jubilees was composed several years

after Enoch and interacts with material from Genesis and Exodus. Sixteen fragments of Jubilees were discovered at

Qumran on fifteen scrolls (1Q17-18, 2Q19-20, 3Q5, 4Q176B, 4Q216-224, 11Q12); Craig A. Evans, Holman

QuickSource™ Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls, HolRB (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 273-4;

Baillie, Facing the Fiend, 35-7.

Baillie, 35; Evans, Guide, 274; See also Henry Ansgar Kelly, Satan: A Biography (Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press, 2006), 32-50.

Brown, “The Devil in the Details,” 201.

The Book of Enoch

The first thirty-six chapters in 1 Enoch are called the Book of the Watchers. The “earliest

Aramaic manuscript evidence” suggests that the first eleven chapters were in existence in the

“first half of the second century” BC, and the book was completed before “the death of Judas

Maccabeus in 160” BC.

Chapters six through eleven detail how many angels left heaven to take

earthly wives because they lusted after them. These unions resulted in the birth of giants who

terrorized the earth with great evil and encouraged men to sin, leading to God’s judgment of the

Flood. Genesis 6:1-4 relays a similar story, with fewer details, and calls the offspring Nephilim,

meaning “the fallen ones” (Num 13:33; Jer 6:15; Ezek 32:27).

The Genesis account is less critical of the Nephilim than Enoch and their impact on the

human population, placing the onus for wickedness upon mankind. God’s judgment to bring

about the Flood within 120 years set a limit on the length of time that man could continue in

wickedness (Gen 6:3). Ronald Hendel reinforces the necessity of cosmic restoration for the

unholy pairing of the “human … and divine” worlds, agreeing with other scholars that this was a

contributing factor if not the sole purpose of the Flood.

The book of Enoch makes four major

contributions to the development of Satan, as follows: (1) the text recognizes angels by name, (2)

reveals that angels possess the ability to make decisions, (3) outlines angelic participation in

some form of hierarchal organization, and (4) details how God held them responsible for their

actions.

George W. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis,

MN: Fortress Press, 2005), 46.

Ronald S. Hendel, “When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men,” BibRev 3, no. 2

(1987): 11; Ellen White, “Who Are the Nephilim?” BAS, February 17, 2023, https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/

daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/who-are-the-nephilim/; Siphiwe Ndlovu and Angelo Nicolaides, “Angels and

Angelology: The Ministering Spirits and Elect ‘sons of God’,” PJT 102, no. 1 (2021): 14.

Hendel, “Sons of God,” 11; White, “Nephilim;” Ndlovu and Nicolaides, “Angels and Angelology,” 14.

The Book of Tobit

This apocryphal book is an accepted part of the Bible in the Catholic and Orthodox

churches (Greek and Russian) but is not accepted by Protestants. Micah Kiel explains, “There is

no evidence that the text was ever ‘canonical’ in the Jewish tradition.”

The book lays out a dual

storyline about a devout Jewish man of the Naphtali tribe named Tobit, who was deported to

Nineveh at the fall of the Northern Kingdom (Tob 1:5-8), and a widow named Sarah, who has

suffered the death of seven husbands at the hand of an evil demon, Asmodeus (Tob 3:8).

Akin

to Job’s story, Tobit suffers a physical hardship (i.e., blindness) in addition to persecution and

near financial ruin (Tob 2:10). Both Tobit and Sarah pray for death, and the angel, Rafael, is sent

by God to aid them (Tob 3:2-5, 11-17).

This story conveys the presence of two named angels that play oppositional roles and

move around the earth unseen. Raphael takes on human form, arranges for Asmodeus to be

“expelled” from Sarah’s home, and pursues him into Egypt, where he binds him for

imprisonment (Tob 5:4; 8:3). Raphael is the same name as one of the four archangels in the

Watchers (Enoch 9:1), some of whom are mentioned in the NT. In the Watchers, God dispatches

Raphael to pursue one of the chief leaders of the fallen sons of God, Azazel (Enoch 8:1).

Raphael binds him “hand and foot,” just as he does with Asmodeus in Tobit, and “cast” Azazel

“into darkness” (Enoch 10:4). Raphael reveals to Tobit that he is “one of seven angels who stand

and serve before the Glory of the Lord,” and he was “acting out … by God’s will” (Tob 12:15,

18). The attestation of the number of archangels and their roles as warriors, messengers, and

travelers among the nations is widely accepted in oral tradition and reflected in many IP, ST,

Micah D. Kiel, “Tobit,” OxBib, January 15, 2015, DOI: 10.1093/0b0/9780195393361-0184.

The Book of Tobit, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, https://bible.usccb.org/bible/tobit/0.

Talmudic, and Midrashic writings (e.g., Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Pesach Haggadah,

Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, The Legend of the Jews, and The Beginning of Wisdom).

The Book of Jubilees

Around the time of the Maccabean Revolt (167–160 BC), several apocalyptic pieces of

literature were written, including the book of Jubilees. Reportedly, Moses authored the book

after the contents were revealed to him by the “sons of God” on Mount Sinai.

The overarching

content is based upon the accepted writings of Moses, Genesis 1–Exodus 12. Jubilees “reflects

priestly concerns, and other religious ideas, theology, and laws, … composed in Hebrew,” and

later, “transposed into Greek and” Ethiopian, shares George Nickelsburg.

The Ethiopian version

is the only complete copy, and Jubilees is part of the Ethiopian Bible. Nickelsburg notes that this

book is a precursor to the “halakic and haggadic exegesis of the rabbis.”

Several connections can be made between the three books. Enoch and Tobit contain

named angels, and Jubilees supplies a name for “the chief of the spirits,” the evil Mastema (Jub.

10:11). Jubilees discusses the role of the Watchers introduced in Enoch as the origin of sin in the

world (Jub. 4:22). The book “presupposes and advocates the use of a solar calendar,” and such a

calendar is extensively detailed in the Book of Luminaries (1 Enoch 72-82) as a revelation from

Uriel, another named archangel.

Additional extant writings reveal names for Satan and other

celestial beings, demonstrating a hierarchal organization within Jewish demonology. Eventually,

Satan emerges as the adversarial leader and fuses a proper name with the ultimate evil role in the

NT.

Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 69.

Ibid., 74.

Ibid.

Ibid., 44-6, 69.

In the New Testament

The NT has significantly contributed to the identity of Satan and catalogs his rise to

becoming the most prominent adversary among the fallen sons of God. The most biblical content

on celestial beings is found in the Synoptic Gospels, with Revelation as a close second. The

development of Satan in the Intertestamental and ST periods moved him and demonic cohorts

from characterless representations to being central figures, and this elevated the Trinitarian

efforts on behalf of the souls of men in the NT. The contention is that Satan is not the śāṭān of

Job. Stating this does not mean that Satan was nonexistent from the beginning or that he is the

only fallen leader from among the angels. Altogether, what is the Jewish argument about the

identity of the real “enemy” in the NT; is it “sin or Satan,” or are these the same?

Every notable OT leader has experienced Satan in the sense of the “rabbinic doctrine of

the evil inclination,” and their successes and failures rush forward from Genesis to the present.

The OTP and Apocrypha give evidence that Satan and evil forces were alive in the minds of the

Jews. They viewed malevolent advisors and accusers as instigators and encouragers of unholy

thoughts and resultant actions. In the STP, satans were also figuratively personified as earthly

kings and conquerors, and these men imposed satanic and Satanic oppression upon God’s people

in authentic ways.

Capturing the diversity of Satan’s personification proves that he has existed since the

creation of the heavenly hosts. Discussing OT adversaries and accusers with evil intentions is to

examine the nature of Satan because these are shared traits. However, if Satan is behind or

somehow responsible for every use of   in the OT, this would elevate him to a dualistic

Torsten Löfstedt, “Paul, Sin and Satan: The Root of Evil According to Romans,” SEÅ 75 (2010): 109.

Ibid., 125; b. B. Bat. 16a:8.

position with Jesus. Conclusively, Satan as a son of God and Jesus as the Son of God are not

sons of equal measure.

God’s Sons

The titles Son of God and Son of Man define the person of Jesus Christ. On earth, he

served both his Heavenly Father (John 5:30; 6:38) and humanity (Mark 10:45; Luke 22:27). He

was a resident of Heaven until he came to dwell on earth with man. Subsequently, Jesus did not

need an introduction to Satan and told the disciples, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like

lightning” (Luke 10:18). Two OT passages seemingly refer to the fall of Satan (Isa 14:12-15;

Ezek 28:11-19), and this has inspired speculation about whether Jesus’ comment is connected to

the OT or the recounting of a war with the angels in heaven (Rev 12:7-10). Either way, He knew

him as a son of God, one of Trinitarian creation.

The first recorded NT interaction between Satan and Jesus is the temptation in the desert

where Satan employs the evil inclination, to no avail (Matt 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13).

Jewish thought is divided on the origination of the good and evil inclinations in human beings. Is

one or both present at birth, the result of temptation or positive influence, or does the evil

inclination become active in adolescence (Bereishit. Rab. 34:10; Kohelet Rab. 4:13)?

Jesus is

both human and divine, so it would stand to reason that either Satan presented veiled

inclinations, or he attempted to invoke what is already a part of human nature.

Satan begins two of the temptations with “if you are the Son of God” (Matt 4:4, 5; Luke

4:3, 9) when he is already sure of Jesus’ identity. This should not be seen as unfamiliarity; these

are implied accusations against the legitimacy of Jesus’ sovereignty and Trinitarian position. The

Sefaria, “Kohelet Rabbah,” https://www.sefaria.org/Kohelet_Rabbah?tab=contents.

questioning of God’s sovereignty by the śāṭān in Job and Satan’s questioning of Jesus’ position

is a consistent demonic ploy.

In the years to follow, Jesus encountered śāṭāns and satans. During his ministry, he faced

thousands of demons who were keenly aware of his power and position. On one occasion,

demons were coming out of the sick and called out to him, “You are the son of God!” (Luke

4:41). Some human satans (adversaries and accusers) included the leaders of religious sects and

his disciples (Judas and Peter).

More information is revealed about satanic and Satanic

encounters in the Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s writings, and the book of Revelation.

The Acts, Paul’s Epistles, and John’s Revelation

The Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline corpus, and John’s Revelation outline layers of evil,

explaining how Satan and destructive forces come up against Christians and the Church. There is

controversy about whether Acts can be considered “primary source material,” in relation to its

representation of events and the person of Paul; however, the level of adversarial human and

demonic activity in Acts and the epistles feature strong parallels.

The persecution and

martyrdom of the apostles and other saints began almost immediately after Jesus’ death, with

Saul’s (Paul the Apostle) involvement in the death of Stephen (Acts 7:54-60). Peter and Paul

both “consign” sinful human offenders to Satan (Acts 5:3; 1 Cor 5:1-5). In addition, Paul

describes his earthy opponents as “disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” when they are

operating as NT satans (2 Cor 11:13-15).

Jewish groups that opposed Jesus were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Sanhedrin. From among his

followers, Judas led the authorities to Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane for money (Matt 27:3; John 18:2), and

Peter denied knowing Christ (Matt 26:69-75). Jesus referred to Peter by the name of Satan as a rebuke and called

him a stumbling block prior to this (Matt 16:23, Mark 8:33).

Gerd Lüdemann, The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the Church

(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005), 14-8.

As far as demonic activity, many unclean spirits were evicted from their human abodes

by the apostles, beginning with Philip in Samaria (Acts 8:7). Paul and Silas were arrested and

imprisoned because Paul commanded a spirit to leave a slave woman in Thyatira (Acts 16:16-

24). Later, Paul was so filled with the spirit in Ephesus that inanimate objects “were even carried

from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out” (Acts 19:11-

12). Like the demonic recognition in Luke 4:41, an evil spirit testifies to the “seven sons of

Sceva,” who were attempting to cast out demons in Jesus’s name, “I recognize Jesus, and I know

Paul” (Acts 19:14-15).

The level of Satanic and demonic activity was heightened as the apostles’ ministries

flourished. Brown acknowledges, “The letters of Paul are rife with references to evil powers and

figures, including ‘principalities’ (άρχαί), ‘powers’ (δυνάμες), ‘authorities’ (έζουσίαι), angels

(ἄγγελος), ‘rulers’ (οί ἄρχοντες), ‘elemental spirits’ (τά στοιχῖα), demons (τά δαιμόνια), and

Satan (ό σατανᾶς).”

These evil representations are not the primary focus of Pauline writings,

receiving general and sporadic coverage. Paul’s focus is on encouragement, instruction, and

reproof. Paul states for himself and believers in 2 Corinthians, “that no advantage would be taken

of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes” (2:11).

Addressing Satan in well-defined, illustrative terms helps believers to understand that

Satan seeks to thwart the Gospel message and the established churches.

Paul describes him as

“the god of this age” (1 Cor 4:4), a hinderer and tempter (1 Thess 2:18; 3:5), a seizer of

opportunities (Eph 4:27), and a schemer that launches offensives upon the righteous (Eph 6:11).

He was keenly aware of the opposition of Satan and the evil forces of darkness. He maintained

Derek R. Brown, The God of This Age: Satan in the Churches and Letters of the Apostle Paul, WUNT 2.

Reihe 409 (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 1.

Ibid., 2-3.

that humanity could overcome the devil's schemes and triumph in any situation because of

Christ’s victory over death and evil.

John describes Satan as “the great dragon” and “the ancient serpent” (Rev 12:9-10). In

detail, John commends and warns seven churches about their spiritual condition so they can

recognize the dangers within and from without (Rev 2:1–3:22). The book of Revelation shows

how Satan’s identity will culminate in an “eschatological destruction” that will restore heaven

and earth to the fullness of God’s original intention and within the surety of his will.

Contextual Synopsis

The origin and identity of Satan is a noteworthy exploration when considering the various

translations of the OT and multiple ancient Jewish and ANE texts. The OTP, Apocrypha, and

Rabbinic literature add value and depth to studying satanic figures and their interactions in the

corporeal and spiritual worlds. Satan’s literary rise within Judaism is indicative of shifts in the

attribution of sin and evil and the isolation of culpability and responsibility for the same. Men

and angels alike exercise freedom of choice, limited by the natural and spiritual laws God has set

in place. Both are accountable and judged for their actions.

The pluralistic and polytheistic worlds of the ANE influenced beliefs concerning divine

entities, with the IP and STP making the most prolific contribution to Satan's rise and

development. Nondescript celestial beings in the OT are individualized and personified, leading

to Satan’s emergence as the focal point of all evil in the NT. He becomes the chief instigator and

leader of demonic forces. Ancient Jewish texts offer a range of portrayals of Satan, from a

harmless and annoying trickster to a devious and spiteful figure.

Brown, “The Devil in the Details,” 214.

Satan is the epitome of the Hebrew word, śāṭān, for he is an adversary, accuser, and

stumbling block for mankind. Having said this, the OT does not holistically address him as an

extraordinary figure or set him apart from others, with the possible exceptions of Isaiah 14:12-15

and Ezekiel 28:11-19. In consideration of the information gleaned from these sources, he is not

Job’s haśśāṭān. This assessment is central to the exposition of Job 1–2. Despite inconsistencies

in the wide range of available literature, the consistent biblical message is that the divisive

existence and actions of śāṭāns, whether haśśāṭāns, lǝśāṭāns or the Satan, are subject to God’s

authority, wisdom, and power, for he alone is sovereign.

CHAPTER FOUR: THE

ŚĀṬĀN’S

ARGUMENTS

The origin and identity of Satan and his rise to prominence promote a deeper

understanding of Job 1–2, alleviating contextual impositions on the Joban character, the śāṭān.

The background investigation on satanic figures thus far has focused on comparing OT passages

involving encounters with human adversaries and celestial beings. The OT also offers several

examples of visions that reveal details about the heavenly court and special observances,

gleaning information that increases the understanding of why the functions of the court and

interactions with the Joban śāṭān are unique.

This vision reveals unusual events that unfold

rapidly between the heavenly gatherings and tragic announcements on Earth. The testing of Job’s

faith begins without any warning.

During two heavenly encounters, God provides evidence of Job’s righteousness (1:8;

2:3). In response, the śāṭān criticizes Job’s devotion by challenging God, levying accusations,

and attempting to compromise Job’s faith. His disdain for God’s person and God’s people

motivates him to destroy Job’s life through a series of sanctioned actions meant to disillusion and

discredit God and Job. His verbal attacks on God’s sovereignty are inferred and intentional,

levied under the guise of indignation over Job’s posture and position. The exposition of Job 1:6–

2:8 recognizes that the assaults on Job (1:9-11; 2:4-5) indicate the developing war that would be

waged for the souls of men between God and the forces of evil. The infliction of immense

This chapter will explore the repetitive content of Job 1–2 as a primary approach and transition to the

unique content in each chapter. Literary repetitions are used at the beginning of Job 2 and a change in tone between

God and the śāṭān is evident. The interpretation of Job’s righteousness is both lauded and critiqued, setting the stage

for the Dialogue (3–26) and Monologue (27–37), to follow.

The author of the story does not interact with the storyline or indicate that his knowledge of the gatherings

comes from a vision. Nonetheless, the revelation of the scene warrants such an occurrence, either through direct

inspiration from the Holy Spirit or oral tradition.

suffering by the śāṭān is retributive, but the root of this retribution is the disdain for God’s

posture and sovereign position.

The Gatherings (1:6–2:7)

The general description and setting for the gatherings occur in heaven, where God and

the angels have assembled. The author introduces each assembly with the phrase,  ֹ (vayhî

hayyōm), meaning “And it came to pass in that day” (1:6; 2:1). This phrase transitions the

description of Job’s earthly days and regular routine to a particular day. When comparing the two

individual scenes, the wording changes in the second chapter to differentiate the first gathering

from the second. The NASB begins 2:1 by changing the introduction to “Again there was a day,”

replacing “Now.” The LXX begins with “And it came to pass on a day” (1:6), but the second

gathering is described as occurring on a “certain day” (2:1). The NETS uses the Greek phrase ἡ

ἡμέρα αὕτη (ho hēmera houtos), meaning “the” or “this set day” in both chapters (1:6 LXX; 2:1

LXX), implying the gathering is planned. The consistent specificity within translations reinforces

that the gatherings are prearranged, occur regularly at a particular time and place, and are

purposeful.

Time, Place, and Purpose (1:6; 2:1)

Rashi determines that these appointed days coincide with Jewish traditional observances,

and he believes the first heavenly gathering is associated with Rosh Hashanah, established as a

celebration of the Jewish New Year in Leviticus 23:24-25.

The only biblical appearance by this

name is used as a historical marker at the beginning of Ezekiel 40:1 ( , bǝrō'š haššānâ).

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 1:6; The two-day observance of Rosh Hashanah happens in the Jewish month of

Tisrei. The Jews are called to contemplation by the blowing of the shofar, a ram’s horn, to think over the past year

and repent. There are four new year observances in Judaism, with the others occurring in the months of Nisan, Elul,

and Shevat; Paul Steinberg, Celebrating the Jewish Year: The Fall Holidays: Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Sukkot

(Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2007), 23-7, 228.

In the OT, this day is most often called “Yom Ha-Zikaron (Day of Remembrance)” or “Yom

Teruah (Day of the Sounding),” and it precedes “Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement).”

If Rashi is

correct, is it possible the second heavenly gathering was on Yom Kippur, occurring ten days

following Rosh Hashanah. The time between the first and second gatherings is not disclosed in

either chapter to confirm his supposition. This type of event could be connected to historical and

recurring heavenly observances.

Historical Observances

This study previously accepted that Moses is the likely author of this book, and Job

passed away before he came to Midian and before the deliverance of the Israelites. Therefore,

whether Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and the Levitical system were fully established in

Deuteronomic fashion has not been determined. However, this does not exclude connections to

specific holy days or heavenly observances in the book of Job. With caution, the expressions of

worship and repentance from before the days of Noah down through the Patriarchs should not be

discounted and considered to be lesser spiritual practices. Expressions of worship and penitence

in the form of sacrificial offerings appear as early as Genesis 4:3-4.

Meaningful observances can only come from the mind of God; therefore, the heavenly

gatherings could have been significantly connected to known observances or those yet to be

revealed. Isaiah 46:10 confirms that the mind of God is fluid, “Declaring the end from the

beginning, and from ancient times things that have not been done, saying, ‘My plan will be

established, and I will accomplish all my good pleasure.’” Thus, everything that happens comes

Steinberg, Celebrating the Jewish Year, 233-4.

Lewis Paton stresses “two contradictory traditions in regard to the origin of Yahweh-worship: according

to one, Yahweh was known to the forefathers of Israel from primeval times; according to the other he first revealed

himself to Moses.” Believing the latter is to ignore the Creation account and the documented history of divine

revelation from Adam down to Noah; Lewis Bayles Paton, “The Origin of Yahweh-Worship in Israel,” BibW 28, no.

1 (July, 1906): 6-15.

under God’s rule; his plans have been set and are revealed at the proper time. Why these

heavenly assemblies occur on specific days and at a particular place is not explained, but the fact

that they occur in Job is not biblically unique.

Recurring Observances

Descriptions of the Joban heavenly occurrences were transmitted to the Joban author by

direct or indirect revelation. The vision of what happened in heaven is essential to the context of

Job’s story, and additional vision-based accounts are available for comparison. The OT recounts

three prophetic visions of assemblies in heaven, with two being closely aligned with aspects of

Job 1–2.

In 1 Kings, Micaiah, the prophet, has a vision of God and angels discussing a divine

plan to remove King Ahab (r. BC 871–852) from the throne of the Northern Kingdom of Israel

(22:19-23). One of Zechariah’s visions depicts Joshua, the high priest, standing to the left of an

accuser who is rebuked by the Lord (3:1-3). Comparing the two texts with Job 1–2 will reveal

similarities that confirm shared elements and raise other points for discussion that speak to the

legitimacy and consistency of the events in the Prologue.

The alignment of elements in the visions supports the timing and recurrence of heavenly

assemblies. The three featured assemblies occur in the presence of the Lord in heaven, and most

likely, the throne room is the location for the divine court. The heavenly hosts are universally

aware, including those of higher substance (the angel of the Lord; Zech 3:1) and the sons of God

(those in right standing and the fallen ones). The two visions come at pivotal times in the

Three visionary accounts of heavenly assemblies are found in the OT: 1 Kings 22:19-23, Zechariah 3:1-7,

and Daniel 7:9-27. The vision in Daniel describes an apocalyptic and eschatological scene where all are gathered in

heaven to witness the demise of evil and the presentation of good.

histories of the Hebrews and, later, the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. These proceedings

unfold differently in content, and procedurally, they are similarly purposed.

Comparing the Visions in 1 Kings 22 to Job 1–2

A comparison of the visions in 1 Kings and Job outlines several procedural distinctions

defining the observances’ purposes. The first similarity is that God initiates the conversations

about Job and Ahab (1:8; 2:3; 1 Kgs 22:20). Second, God’s consent is required before actions

can be implemented (1:12; 2:6; 1 Kgs 22:22c). In Job, the śāṭān is not asked to outline his plan

like the spirit in 1 Kings (22:19); however, the gatherings are still procedurally aligned.

Significant dissimilarities are associated with the identities of the two spirits and how this

identifies the observances. The Hebrew word  (rûaḥ, meaning spirit) is used for the angel in 1

Kings, and it is recognized as a member of the heavenly hosts (1 Kgs 22:19, 21). The text does

not identify the rûaḥ as an adversary, using any form of prior designation (lǝśāṭān, haśśāṭān, or

Satan). Unquestionably, the rûaḥ is an accepted participant (1 Kgs 22:20-21). Donald Wiseman

asserts that this angel is one of “God’s servants doing his bidding” and not necessarily a member

of the heavenly court defined in “Ugaritic myths (1 Kgs 22:19).

If the śāṭān is not the

Almighty’s servant, the observances in Kings and Job cannot be the same. Micaiah’s vision may

lack certain Joban elements since the literary focus is more on God being the adversary. Micaiah

claims “the Lord put a deceiving spirit in the” prophet’s mouths and “declared disaster against”

Ahab (1 Kgs 22:23). The śāṭān is identified in Job, making no other plausible claims about his

identity. Additionally, Job is represented as the “greatest man” in the East (1:3) compared to

King Ahab’s lack of piety. Ahab considered it “a trivial thing” to follow the sinful ways of

previous kings, and he was worse “than all” of them (1 Kgs 16:30-33).

Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, vol. 9, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 210.

Comparing Visions in Zechariah 3 to Job 1–2

The vivid courtroom scene in Zechariah 3 is a closer representation of the Joban

gatherings. The passages in these books both include satanic figures that fulfill the role of

adversary turned accuser.

Both scenes have human subjects; Joshua is present, and Job is

unaware. Multiple angels are in attendance; one has an elevated role as a “mediator” between

“God and man” and others carry out resulting directives.

The language reads as if heavenly

accusations were not levied, but the śāṭān was prepared to prosecute (Zech 3:1). Mark Boda,

Andrew Hill, and James Vanderkam purport that heavenly accusations were made but

unrecorded, while Anthony Petterson and Sydney Page dispute this conclusion.

In agreement with Petterson and Page, the mediator stops the proceeding before the

accuser levies his accusations since Joshua’s guilt has already been established. Rashi explains

that earthly charges were made against the sons of Joshua, and Joshua sinned because he did not

correct them (Ezra 10:18; Jer 29:1-3).

In fact, the accuser is rebuffed rhetorically when the

mediator asks if Joshua is “a log snatched from the fire” (Zech 3:2)? The judgment is rendered as

a rebuke of the śāṭān (Zech 3:2) because the matter has already been dealt with through earthly

punishment, of which Joshua was spared, albeit singed.

Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 414.

Saint Jerome (d. AD 420), an early church father, claims the vision has “Hebrew” and spiritual meanings.

He likens the speaking angel to that of a mediator, and spiritually, he claims the accused and the angel are Jesus.

Jesus is known in the NT as a Mediator (1 Tim 2:5) and the High Priest (Heb 4:14-16); Jerome of Stridon,

Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets, vol. 2, ACT, ed. Thomas P. Scheck (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

2017), 63, 88.

Mark J. Boda, The Book of Zechariah, NICOT, ed. R. K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand

Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016.), 109, 185; Andrew E. Hill, Haggai, Zechariah, and

Malachi, vol. 28, TOTC, ed. David G. Firth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 149; James C.

Vanderkam, “Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3,” CBQ 53, no. 4 (October, 1991): 555;

Anthony R. Petterson, Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi, vol. 25, ApOTC, ed. David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 139; Sydney H. T. Page, “Satan: God’s Servant,” JETS 50, no. 3

(September, 2007): 453.

Sefaria, “Rashi on Zechariah,” 3:1-4, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Zechariah?tab=contents.

Rashi refers to the Jewish tradition in the Talmud that explains the intratextual

connections between Jeremiah 29 and Zechariah 3. He transmits the story about Joshua being

one of three men who survived Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace, akin to the story of Hananiah,

Mishael, and Azariah (Dan 3:8-25).

The repeated phrase, “the Lord … rebuke you,” clarifies

the identity of the Lord as the one who “has chosen Jerusalem” as his sacred dwelling place and

the holy seat of his people (Zech 3:2). God has extended grace to Joshua as a symbol of the grace

given for the preservation of Judah. In Job, the exposition will reveal that God extended grace to

Job’s circumstances; he would not be left untouched, but his life would be spared. The

comparison of these two visions shows continuity in how God deals with the judgment of Joshua

and Job, recognizing the lack of culpability on Job’s part by the Lord’s standards.

Spirits of Purpose

The reasons for attending the heavenly gatherings are individualized to the three spirits,

even though the observances ultimately serve a two-fold purpose. The rûaḥ’s reason is to

participate actively. He plays a role in the group discussion, the judgment of Ahab, and stands

“beside” and “before” the Lord (1 Kgs 19:21). The spirit proposes a plan to “entice” Ahab to go

to war so he will fall in battle (1 Kgs 19:20, 22). The śāṭān in Zechariah devises his plan before

standing before the mediator and the Lord; he wants Joshua judged and punished. The Joban

śāṭān’s reason for attending court is vague and evolves in Job 1. He seizes the opportunity to

make accusations in the presence of the Lord. No matter the reasons for their attendance, the

Jewish tradition states that Ahab, the son of Kolaiah, and Zedekiah, the son of Maaseiah, chose Joshua to

be the third man in the fiery furnace with them. Jeremiah 29:21-23 confirms that God allowed the two men to be put

to death by fire for false prophecy and adultery. Joshua was singed but survived, and this is why he appears before

the assembly in soiled clothes; Sefaria, “Rashi on Zechariah,” 3:1-6; b. Sanh. 93a:12-19.

observance of such gatherings is for (1) reporting on the behavior and spiritual status of mankind

before God and (2) for God to render his judgment.

Standing before the Lord indicates involvement with God’s consideration of the

evidence and any resulting actions. The angels from 1 Kings and Zechariah assumed these

positions. The Joban text states, “The sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord”

(1:6; 2:1). This does not mean they are placing themselves and their actions before him for

judgment. The wording from the HB,   , is translated as “he was caused to stand

beside (or before) the Lord.” This shows a unity of purpose for the gatherings and the positions

assumed by the angels.

Rashi believes that the Joban śāṭān was “commanded … to bring the merit and guilt of all

creatures” before God.

He assumes that the śāṭān is a member of the heavenly court and

participates in regular reporting. In contrast, the rûaḥ engages in actions against Ahab to

accomplish God’s will and is more likely to belong to the court as an angel in right standing with

God than the śāṭāns of Zechariah and Job. Their misalignment with the will of God is evident.

The gathering in Zechariah shows that the court is purposed for righteous acts of

judgment and grace. King Ahab is given a warning, placed amid deceptive speech, and he

ignores Micaiah’s advice. His advisors were ungodly, so the angel appealed to their already

deceptive natures. The Joban śāṭān fails to hear the testimony of the Lord. He adheres to the

sovereignty of God without any recognition of the truth set before him, purposing himself to

ignorance. The diversity of the identities and purposes of celestial beings points to the bǝnê

'ĕlōhîm being more diverse than a surface reading would imply.

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 1:6.

Bǝnê 'ĕlōhîm, the Sons of God (1:6)

The    (bǝnê 'ĕlōhîm, meaning “sons of God”) is mentioned three times in Job,

twice in the Prologue (1:6; 2:1) and once in the Epilogue (38:7). Chung notices that the “LXX

translates” bǝnê 'ĕlōhîm as “‘the sons of God’ in Job 1–2 and in 38:7 as ‘the angels of God.’”

Interestingly, the LXX and the HB refer to the Joban assembly as being attended by the “angels

of God,” and not “sons” (1:6; 2:1), which leads to the belief that the sons of God only refer to

fallen angels. The wider usage of this phrase includes both humans and celestials, with several

angelic associations found within the HB.

Prophetic books favor   (ṣǝḇā' haššmayim,

meaning “Hosts of Heaven”) and  (Yǝhōvâ sǝḇā'ôṭ, meaning “Lord of Hosts”).

Stephen Vicchio sees these two phrases as “synonymous” with the sons of God; however,

heavenly hosts include the sun, the moon, planets, and the stars (Gen 2:1; Ps 33:6; Jer 33:22).

Philo of Alexandria (15 BC–AD 50) confirms that ancient peoples viewed them as such,

explaining,

Some persons have conceived that the sun, and the moon, and the other stars are independent gods. …

But … the rulers being all the bodies which are in heaven, such as planets and fixed stars … are not

independent and absolute, but are the viceroys of one supreme Being, the Father of all, in imitation of

whom they administer with propriety and success the charge committed to their care.

Only one of the prophetic verses cited by Vicchio is related to the Creation and the created order

of the heavenly hosts. The remainder refers to the “Lord of Hosts,” a divine title that conveys

God’s strength, protection, and the power he can employ because of the hosts that he commands.

The NASB often interprets this as “the Lord of Armies” and associates his person with the title

Chung, “Concept of Satan,” 44.

See Gen 6:2; Pss 29:1; 82:1; 89:6; Dan 3:25.

Vicchio provides the following references in Isaiah (34:4; 37:32; 54:5), Jeremiah (11:17), and Amos

(5:16); Vicchio, Job, 50.

Ibid.

Philo, Spec.1.3 (Yonge); Philo of Alexandria, The Works of Philo Judæus: The Contemporary of

Josephus, Translated from the Greek, trans. C. D. Yonge (London, England: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), 177-8.

of the Warrior King. These terms may be related because God created and commands the hosts,

but they are not synonymous in this application.

In past scholarship, earthly rulers and judges have been associated with this phrase,

which is not applicable in Job 1–2.

The sons of God could refer to human kings, but in Job,

they are lesser divine beings created by God for the governance of the world. Gerald Cooke does

not advocate for a human inference. He deduces that these are not sons in a “filial sense” but are

angels from the divine realm “who partake in divinity,” and the phrasing “should … denote a

functional kinship group or special class of beings.”

As the sons of God, they were created as

part of a divine system, with “contingent existence and power … and are not omnipotent or

omniscient,” expounds Michael Heiser.

Gaon does not accept the divinity of the Joban śāṭān, interpreting him as being “more

literally, ‘the children of God.’”

He uses several passages to reflect upon God’s children as the

nation of Israel and their depravity, including Deuteronomy 32:5. This chapter includes the

assignment of the nations to “the sons of Israel” (Deut 32:8). Gaon states firmly, “As for the

adversary (śāṭān), he was in fact an ordinary human being” and “so commonly is this word

(śāṭān) applied to people who oppose one another that it occurs in many passages.”

Heiser

shares Gaon’s disagreement on the identity of the sons of God as it relates to the possible

Cyrus Gordon, “ in its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” JBL 54, no. 3 (1935): 139-44; E.

Theodore Mullen, The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1980),

228.

Gerald Cooke, “The Sons of (The) God(s),” ZAW 76, no. 1 (January, 1964): 24-5.

Michael S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158, no. 629 (January-March, 2001):

69.

Robert Eisen, The Book of Job in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (New York, NY: Oxford University Press,

2004), 24.

Saadiah Ben Joseph Al-Fayyūmī, The Book of Theodicy: Translation and Commentary on the Book of

Job, vol. 25, YJS, trans. L. E. Goodman (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1988), 154; Eisen, Medieval

Jewish Philosophy, 24-5.

alteration of texts.

Gaon’s perception of the identity of the śāṭān may be influenced by the

perceived dangers that a defiant Satan and dualistic beliefs pose to the “tenets of monotheism.”

The existence of Satan does not lessen monotheistic beliefs but enhances the importance of

knowing that Yahweh is the one and only true God. He is the only one with the authority and

power to bestow and remove status and responsibilities and place limitations on the sons of God.

Gaon is not the only one concerned about these things; someone else slightly altered the HB to

avoid such issues.

Sons of Israel or Sons of God

A fragment found among the DSS helps define ancient perceptions concerning this group

of angels. The information would not have been available to Rabbinic teachers, like Rashi and

Gaon, and other more contemporary scholars before the mid-twentieth century. The significance

of 4QDeutj is that it contains a phrase from the “Song of Moses” (Deut 32:1-43), a recitation

Moses gave before his death. Deuteronomy 32:7-8 explains,

Remember the days of old, consider the years of all generations. Ask your father and he

will inform you, your elders, and they will tell you. When the Most High gave the nations their

inheritance, when He separated the sons of mankind, He set boundaries of the peoples according

to the number of the sons of Israel (emphasis added).

The idea that God separated the nations in this manner has been a source of confusion for

countless years, as the number of the human sons of Israel was greater than the number of

nations in existence. The discovery resolves any confusion, revealing a textual variant in the last

phrase of verse eight. The 4QDeutj fragment reads, “the sons of God,” not the sons of Israel.

This example of “late Herodian script” dates to the “late first century AD,” making it the

“earliest Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 32:8. … This reading, preserved in Greek in the

Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8,” 57-8.

Al-Fayyūmī, The Book of Theodicy, 167.

Septuagint but not in the received Hebrew text, seems rather clearly to be the authentic original

reading” (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: Fragment of Deuteronomy 32:8 (4QDeutj). Plate 172,

Frag 10, B-359054. Photo Credit: Shai HaLevi (April, 2003).

https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-

359054. Used by Permission.

The LXX reflects the last phrase of this verse as the “angels of God,” but later replaced it

with the “sons of Israel” to match the MT.

Israelite and Canaanite traditions describe the sons

of God as being those who accompanied Yahweh or El in the heavenly assembly, with the

Israelite “sons” being far more “restricted” within “their sphere of activity.”

The textual variant

Hendel, “Sons of God,” 9-10; The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, “Plate 172, Frag 10,”

Israel Antiquities Authority B-359054, https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-359054.

Later versions of the LXX reflect “the sons of Israel” and this would have provided confirmation for the

MT. The later textual variant can be found in the “manuscripts of the Aquila (Codex X), Symmachus (also Codex

X), and the Theodotion;” Fridericus Field, ed., Origenis Hexaplorum, Tomus I Prolegomena, Genesis, Esther

(Hildesheim, Germany: Georg Olms, 1964), 320; Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8,” 52-3.

Hendel, 10.

of 32:8, among other things, firmly places the Joban sons of God as heavenly beings in the

heavenly realm.

Ruling the Heavens and the Earth

The manner with which God conducts the heavenly court in the Prologue introduces his

sovereignty over all things without using associated terms. He has ordered all things above,

below, and on earth to express his authority, wisdom, and power. Conceivably, today’s scientific

knowledge about the composition of the sun, moon, and stars dismisses that these are cosmic

rulers, as designated and described by Philo. The ignorance of what other forms of consciousness

or intellect exist beyond human comprehension does not negate that the sun, moon, and stars are

functional and praise God by design. The Scriptures claim that both animate and inanimate

objects can praise God (Ps 19:1-6; Luke 19:40).

The sons of God act by design and choice, and their metaphysical status has changed

throughout history, as discussed in Chapter Three. For example, Satan (Lucifer) was a son of

God, a member of the heavenly court, and he may have been assigned to a particular nation (Isa

14:12; Ezek 28:12-16).

Like the fallen sons of Enochic fame, Azazel and Semjaza (Enoch 6–9),

Satan chose a different way, and others went with him. The roles of the fallen sons in Genesis 6,

Satan and his followers, and the Joban śāṭān demonstrate that some were no longer members of

the heavenly court. They remain subject to the will of God and must operate within set

parameters.

Separating the śāṭān from perceptions of the Devil can be difficult for the reader. For this

discussion, the separation is necessary. Interpreting his words and actions as Satan brings NT

Hendel, “Sons of God,” 9-10.

Wray and Mobley, Birth of Satan, 41-2.

knowledge and history to bear that could move the interpretation out of historical context.

Viewing the śāṭān within the proper context adds clarity to his accusations.

The Śāṭān’s Role Under God (1:7)

A contemporary Christian tenet is that God cannot be in the presence of sin and evil;

however, already discussed OT passages reveal two śāṭāns in the heavenly court. Questions

abound regarding the difference between the heavenly hosts, the “sons of God” (1:6), and the

śāṭān’s presence. Wilson states about 1:7, “The Hebrew is not decisive, and it is likely that he is

singled out here for a narrative purpose.”

In partial agreement, God speaks directly to him, and

this could be nothing more than a literary cue to transition the focus from the whole angelic

group to the singular śāṭān. In partial disagreement, it is more plausible that his fallen state

dictates his role. Midrashic suppositions can help flush out traditions from the past in this regard.

R. Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Wisser (1809–1879), known as Malbim, explains

Israelite traditions that govern the existence of celestial beings and how they relate to God.

Malbim states,

Each of the natural forces of creation is governed by a superior agency that is also its source. These

are the ‘sons of God’ who were in attendance before the Lord; angels that are controlled by and

receive their power from God and who are in turn appointed over each of the forces of existence.

He quotes R. Moses ben Maimon (AD 1138–1204), known as Maimonides, as a means to

explain and differentiate the “adversary” from those holy ones that serve as part of the heavenly

court, adding his thoughts on Job 1:6,

As Maimonides explained, “It does not say ‘And the Sons of God and Satan came to present

themselves before the Lord’; for this sentence would have implied that the existence of both was of

Wilson, Job, 41.

Sefaria, “Malbim on Job,” 1:6:1-2, https://www.sefaria.org/Malbim_on_Job?tab=contents.

100

the same kind and rank…it only states that he joined them. Satan does not attend God of necessity and

a priori, for he has no role in existence, only in extinction and decay.

These Rabbinic positions follow the tradition that Satan is a force of extinction and remanded to

the “sublunar world of matter.”

Malbim and Maimonides’ comments combine with scripture to

confirm that a role within the heavenly court would be an unnatural placement for the śāṭān.

Knowing he is present, God singles him out and inquires, “From where do you come?”

(1:7). His question does not imply ignorance; however, it is a means to begin a dialogue with the

śāṭān. The accuser does not assume an air of formality when he responds and does not adhere to

any conventional behavior that humans would expect when speaking with a king. In almost a

lackadaisical tenor, he answers, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it”

(1:7; 2:2). His answer lacks specificity because he may intend to be vague. His movements differ

from righteous angels who honorably discharge their duties, watching over humanity by

protecting them.

His participation in the conversation will prove to be reactionary, and his

motivations will be ones of disputation. In disagreement with Rashi, he is not there because he

has a report to give, for God wishes to report on his servant Job.

My Servant, Job (1:8; 2:3)

The book of Job is not the only place in Scripture where God portrays a follower as a

servant, using a possessive pronoun. God uses the phrase “my servant” twice at the beginning of

Job (1:8; 2:3) and when he speaks directly to Job’s friends at the end of the story (42:7-8). God

Sefaria, “Malbim on Job,” 1:6:1-2; Friedländer’s translation has minor differences to Malbim’s, but the

essence of the text is the same; Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides, Translated

from the Original Arabic Text. 4th ed., rev. ed., trans. by M. Friedländer (New York, NY: E. P. Dutton & Company,

1904), 296-7.

Sefaria, “Malbim on Job,” 1:6-7.

Ibid., 1:6-8; Maimonides, The Guide, 297.

Andersen, Job, 91.

101

bestows the same designation on other OT men who are holy and unholy in his sight.

In each

instance, servanthood is related to participation in God’s plans despite any acknowledgment of or

expressed devotion to him. For example, God refers to King Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 25:9; 43:10) as

his servant since the king would play a role in accomplishing God’s will. God’s long-term will

for Job is that he would remain steadfast as his servant and prove God’s testimony. The friends

do not have the same type of relationship that Job has with God, placing them on the periphery

and in a similar position as the śāṭān.

Blameless and Upright

The first description of Job begins with the coupled phrase,     (tām vǝyāšār,

meaning “blameless and upright”). God (1:8, 2:3) and Job (17:8) use blameless and upright to

describe Job’s moral disposition. Various English derivations for tām and yāšār (e.g., pious,

innocent, perfect, sincere, and whole-hearted) have been used by early church fathers, rabbinic

leaders, and contemporary scholars, such as Clement of Alexandria, Martin Luther, Gaon, Rashi,

Clines, and Solomon Freehof.

The Vulgate uses “simplex and rectus,” meaning simple and

right.

Job was of high moral character, and this testimony equates him to Noah (“righteous and

blameless;” Gen 6:8-9) and Abraham (“blameless;” Gen 17:1).

Blamelessness can be associated with spiritual perfection, which can skew perceptions

about Job. The author exposes Job’s humanity to the reader in the Dialogue (3-26) and

Monologue (27-37). His personality, raw emotions, and how he mentally processes the events do

not divulge flaws in his morality. Athalya Brenner states, “The initial exposition of Job’s

God refers to Abraham (Gen 26:24), Jacob (Isa 44:1-2, 21; 49:3, 6), Moses (Num 12:7-8; Josh 1:2, 7),

David (2 Sam 3:18, 7:5, 8), and Caleb (Num 14:24) using the phrase, “my servant.” These limited references are a

sampling from the OT; the majority of references are related to David.

Vicchio, Job, 49-50.

Clementine Latin Vulgate and Rheims English New Testament, vol. 1-3, rev. ed., trans. Douay-Rheims

(Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2014).

102

character in the prologue is of crucial importance for the credibility of the entire book. … The

religiosity of Job the pious is almost a parody of faith rather than a climatic manifestation of it.”

Brenner doubts the genuine nature of Job’s piety based on his dedication to performing

sacrificial acts for his children. In disagreement, piety is a trait that demonstrates devotion and

reverence to God or a religious practice. Job’s spiritual condition is revealed to be acceptable in

this respect. Reading this book through the lens of one’s views on spiritual perfection unfairly

characterizes Job as a sinner or asserts that he sinned during his ordeal. Another case should be

made on his behalf.

Job lives up to being a hero of the faith (Ezek 14:14, 20; Ja 5:10-11). He moves through a

full range of emotions that lead him to make demands of God. Being fervent in prayer and asking

in confidence that one’s supplications be heard and acknowledged is to manifest spiritual

boldness. Brenner’s chagrin over the omission of a third appearance of Satan is negated by the

fact that Job proves God’s estimation of him to be correct. Such an appearance gains nothing

unless the determination is that Job is not as God portrayed him.

High praise for Job’s upright nature has proven controversial within Jewish interpretive

circles. R. Yoḥanan bar Nafcha (AD 180–279) believes “that which is “stated about Job is

greater than that which is stated about Abraham. As with regard to Abraham it is written:

‘For now I know that you fear God’ (Genesis 22:12).”

God expresses his confidence in

Abraham’s faithfulness because he obeyed God and took his son to the mountain to sacrifice him

(Genesis 22:1-18).

Athalya Brenner, “Job the Pious? The Characterization of Job in the Narrative Framework of the Book,”

JSOT 13, no. 43 (February, 1989): 38, 44.

b. B. Bat. 15b:13.

103

Some tannaitic and amoraic scholars were uncomfortable with such statements and

offered different perspectives on Job’s character compared to Abraham’s. R. Yoḥanan ben

Zakkai (also named Ribaz; 30 BC–AD 90). Ribaz discusses the “seven kinds of religious

people,” claiming that Job was “religious from fear” compared to Abraham, who was “religious

from love…. No one is beloved as much.”

R. Levi bar Laḥma (AD 290–320) imagined that

when God praised Job, Satan commented, “Heaven forbid that He should forget the love of

Abraham.”

Abba ben Joseph bar Ḥama (AD 280–352), known as Rava, slighted Job using the

Hebrew euphemism “dust should be put in the mouth of Job” when comparing his level of piety

concerning marital faithfulness to Abraham.

Job did not look at other women (31:1); Abraham

“did not even look at his own wife,” states Rava (Gen 12:11).

Job was revered and discounted

by some of the Tannaim and Amoraim, much like he was revered by God and discounted by the

śāṭān.

Fearing God and Turning Away

God’s testimony has implications for Job and the adversary. For Job to display the fear of

the Lord, he must have possessed some spiritual wisdom. He recognizes God’s role and submits

to his authority (Job 1:21; 2:10). This enables him to turn away from evil. Ironically,

Maimonides enlightens on the etymology of śāṭān; its Hebrew root,    (śāṭâ), means “to turn

aside from a way” or “to deviate.”

The essence of evil has turned away and deviated from the

y. Soṭah 5:5:4; See also Henrich W. Guggenheimer, ed., The Jerusalem Talmud: Third Order: Našim,

Tractates Sotah and Nedarim, SJ 31, trans. Heinrich W. Guggenheimer (Berlin, Germany: Walter De Gruyter,

2005), 236-7.

b. B. Bat.16a:9.

This Jewish euphemism means that Job “should not have spoken in such a manner.” Rav Abba bar Aivu

(AD 175–247) also uses this phrase; b. B. Bat.16a:15.

Ibid.

H. W. F. Gesenius, s.v. “  ,” Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, trans. Samuel

Prideaux Tregelles (London, England: Bagster & Sons, 1846), 788, http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/

Gesenius/index.htm; Maimonides, The Guide, 298.

104

holiness of God and his goodness. Turning away is an unnatural sensation for man, and only holy

living develops what is known as   (yir'aṯ Yǝhovâ, meaning “the fear of the Lord”). This

phrase is central to understanding why God would set up Job’s life as a spiritual standard and

why the śāṭān would take exception to its use.

Job has been criticized for holding too closely to the outward acts of purity or fulfilling

expectations of the faithful, not taking holiness to heart. Proverbs relays that one must hold

firmly to wisdom with clear direction, keeping straight on the path, and not turning “to the left or

to the right” unless “turning away from the path of the wicked” (4:1-27). Increased wisdom is

connected to increased awareness of the awesomeness of God, and this story proves that one can

always find room for growth if one seeks God during times of testing and trouble.

Job’s physical, cultural, and spiritual dispositions are introduced in Job 1-2. The word-

for-word repetitions in the first and second chapters initiate general discussions that introduce

concepts to be reviewed throughout Job’s ordeal and compared to the other characters and their

presented arguments. The presence of contributory differences in the gatherings provides

additional insight into the dispositions of God, the śāṭān, and Job.

The First Gathering (1:9-19)

God has drawn the śāṭān’s attention to Job, and the accuser does not readily accept Job’s

righteousness at face value. The śāṭān responds with accusatory language, offers evidence to

reinforce his first argument, and introduces the first application of legal metaphor within the

book. Legal overtones begin at 1:9 and continue into the second chapter, preparing the way for a

fuller application of the Judaistic literary form of the covenant lawsuit. Superficial readings can

result in explanations focusing on Job’s character and the attacks against him without

entertaining the accusations against God.

105

The Šāṭān’s Primary Accusations (1:9-10)

The legal metaphor is introduced as the adversary shifts to the role of accuser. The first

accusation uses Job as the subject but infers that God’s actions secure Job’s righteousness. God

participates in this display as a voluntary witness, communicating that Job’s character will hold

up under scrutiny. In response, the śāṭān immediately isolates the word “fear” in God’s

statement. He does not address Job’s character or ability to turn away from evil but questions

Job’s motivation for displaying these behaviors. His veiled accusations against God are

presented as a combination of questions and a single statement. He contests God’s wisdom and

power, leveling three connected challenges:

• Challenge 1: “Does Job fear God for nothing” (1:9)?

o Accusation 1: You are feared only because of what you provide.

• Challenge 2: “Have You not made a fence around him and his house and all that he

has, on every side” (1:10)?

o Accusation 2: You protect him by not allowing harm to him or all that he has.

• Challenge 3: “You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have

increased in the land” (1:10).

o Accusation 3: You have used your influence to prosper him and have multiplied

his status to confirm your status.

The accuser does not believe Job is worthy of God’s testimony since it affirms God’s greatness

and position. Asserting that Job lacks awe and reverence for God cannot be the crux of his

fundamental argument. His words reveal that he has issues with God’s behavior and actions.

106

The Śāṭān’s Evidence and God’s Defense (1:11-12)

The śāṭān is careful to compose his first accusation with Job as the subject; the other two

accusations are more direct and evidentiary. He wants to keep God on the witness stand and call

for a verdict. This accuser does not respect God’s person or his defense of Job’s character despite

working within the parameters of the Lord’s authority. Judiciously, God has already weighed the

evidence; otherwise, he would not offer Job for testing. Instead, he would offer him as a subject

for divine judgment, as in the case of Ahab (1 Kings 22:20). Job is not subject to this treatment

because he fears the Lord.

The Fear of the Lord

`The “fear of the Lord” refers to a fear of Israel’s God, Yahweh. This phrase is a

synonym for wisdom and a catalyst for obtaining knowledge in the OT. Job is a holy man who

displays wisdom and is unafraid of Yahweh. The word “fear” is also a homonym for dread,

terror, awe, reverence, respect, and honor. Holy fear and wisdom can inspire “the hatred of evil,

pride, arrogance, and … perverted speech” (Prov 8:13). R. Moses ben Nachman (shortened to

Ramban; AD 1195–1270), Rashi, and Maimonides note the relationship between exercising the

fear of the Lord and knowledge, mostly in their explanations on Job 28.

Maimonides confirms that “moral reflections” in Scripture are common and determine

the “intimate connexion between” piety and gaining “higher knowledge” (Job 28:28).

Proverbs

9:10 states, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy

One is understanding.” Psalm 111:10 repeats the first part of this verse and adds, “all those who

follow his Commandments have a good understanding.”

Vicchio, Job, 194; Maimonides, The Guide, 301-2.

Maimonides, xliv, 301; Friedländer interprets that Maimonides acknowledges that Job possessed a

“traditional” knowledge but was lacking in “research” knowledge when it came to God’s “providence.”

107

Another interpretation of the phrase “fear of the Lord” offers a juxtaposition between

yir'aṯ Yǝhovâ and the type of fear called    (𝑝aḥaḏ Yǝhovâ). The author of 2 Chronicles

19:7 warns, “Now then, let the fear of the Lord be upon you; be careful about what you do, for

the Lord our God will have no part in injustice or partiality, or in the taking of a bribe.” Unlike

yir'aṯ Yǝhovâ, the second Hebrew phrase is associated with negative English derivations like

terror and dread. 𝑃

aḥaḏ Yǝhovâ is often “followed by a genitive of the cause of terror.”

Multiple

scriptures advocate for fearing the Lord with a sense of dread and fearing him with awe,

reverence, and respect. Each scripture balances the other, and the context of 2 Chronicles 19:7

heavily influences the application of the type of fear.

Since the Joban accuser is questioning Job’s holiness and believes his faith to be fallible,

does this mean that an unholy man should be afraid of God? Sin has proven to be an excellent

insulator; it stands between humanity and God as a buffer that dulls the spiritual senses. The evil

inclination can become deeply rooted in man’s mind and heart to the degree that everything

unholy becomes motivation to feed the basest desires. Truly lost people are enveloped by

wickedness; they are fearful of the effects of evil but do not necessarily experience 𝑝aḥaḏ Yǝhovâ

as they go about their daily lives.

In the face of subsequent judgment, men like David and Ahab

chose “way[s] that seemed right” (Prov 14:12), but their decisions were wrong. When decisions

are made without God and originate from inclinations such as lust, pride, greed, or even panic,

only some fear (𝑝aḥaḏ, yir'at, or both) brings reconsideration, conviction, and repentance. Men

GHCLOT, s.v. “  ,” 337, 671.

In Romans 3, Paul quotes several verses from OT books (Pss 5:9; 10:7; 14:1-3; 36:1; 53:1-3; 58:7-8; Isa

59:7-8) to establish that “Jews and Greeks are all under sin” (Rom 3:11-18). He ends this combination of quotes

with, “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom 3:18b; Ps 36:1). The Greek word for “fear” in 3:18, φόβος

(phóbos), means to experience terror and dread, equating with 𝑝aḥaḏ rather than yir'at; William D. Mounce and

Robert H. Mounce, The Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 2011), 596, 1190.

108

should be afraid or dread how God will react to their sin, but sin encourages them to disregard

holy living and righteous decisions. They possess neither fear (being scared) nor reverence and

awe.

The accuser’s inquiry, “Does Job fear God for nothing?” (1:9), does not question Job’s

dedication; it questions his motives. “For nothing” in verse nine translates to the Hebrew word

  (haḥinnām), meaning “without cause,” “without … reward,” and “without success, in

vain.”

Job respects Yahweh, adheres to holy practices, and performs good deeds. His accuser

thinks his dedication is nurtured only from reaping benefits. The veiled and more profound

accusation is against the character of God. Is God guaranteeing Job’s dedication through his

steady provision? The śāṭān misses the finer points, one of which is that God promises reward

for dedication; therefore, God is acting upon his promises (Num 22:4; Deut 5:33; Ps 37:4; 19:9-

11; Prov 11:18; Jer 17:10).

As the sovereign Lord, he assesses outcomes and delivers justice for the righteous and the

wicked. Does not a wicked person benefit from putting forth consistent effort towards a goal,

even though his “earnings” are “deceptive” (Prov 11:18)? Isaiah 40:10 confirms, “Behold, the

Lord God comes with might, with His arm ruling for Him. Behold, His compensation is with

Him, and his reward before him.” God is not rewarding Job in hopes he will remain faithful. Job

must make that choice, and because he chooses correctly, God rewards him. God is sovereign no

matter what Job decides, and the accusations made by this fiend do not diminish the Lord at all.

Fencing Job in Releases God’s Success

The accuser’s second and third accusations extend the first, having cultural applications

and spiritual implications. The second accusation is that God’s providence and protection have

Wilson, Job, 42.

109

made a fence around Job (1:10). The cultural application of fencing varies. Barriers were used in

various ways, such as designating property lines, parameters for municipalities, and spaces for

herds and flocks. In this instance, pastoralists and agriculturalists grew thorny hedges to keep out

individuals and animals that threatened their property.

Whatever protection was in place, it

would not wholly protect Job from the adversary’s plans. The śāṭān’s ploy is for God to lift his

protections.

Additionally, there are three notable spiritual implications. First, the rabbis believed that

Job’s possessions were supernaturally superior because of God’s blessing, such as his “goats

killed wolves,” and anyone who received a “coin from Job [for business]” was assured success.

The blessings upon the righteous blesses others. Second, the evidence of his prosperity only

enhances his esteem for God, and the accuser attempts to corrupt and devalue any credit

attributed to God’s providence and Job’s righteousness. Similarly, his third accusation attempts

to devalue God’s position by implying that he only blesses Job to enhance the Divine’s

reputation among men. The third implication is that Job’s success and status affirm God’s

position and success.

The Irony of Blessing and Cursing

The śāṭān’s accusation of Job being self-motivated is an accusation that God is self-

affirming and leads to the call for a verdict. Is it that God needs the accolades of man to justify

his existence? Does he need to inflict harm or insert dire circumstances to be lauded when

alleviating suffering? In the reverse, does “the suffering of the righteous … contradict God’s

Wilson, Job, 42.

b. B. Bat. 15a:10; y. B. Bat. 1:33.

110

righteousness?”

The irony is that by blessing men with material possessions, Yahweh is

blessing himself by generating praise for his good works. By cursing man, is he not cursing

himself when man doubts his goodness and presence in great times of difficulty? Contemplating

these questions leads to a level of theological exploration that gains no ground in the arguments

and sews confusion. These questions open the door for the arguments from Job’s wife, his

friends, and one acquaintance on divine retribution.

Ironic disclosures in the book are not just theoretical; they are grammatical. The śāṭān

asserts in verse eleven that Job will “curse” Yahweh to his “face” should he decide to diminish

or take away Job’s possessions (1:11). Ironically, the Hebrew term used in 1:11,   (bāraḵ), is

the word meaning “bless.” This word expresses one meaning but can be employed to mean the

opposite, and it is repeatedly used in this manner in the HB.

God does not fear whether Job will

bless or curse him, and Job requests a face-to-face audience with him anyway (23:3-4).

Therefore, God issues the first verdict with one stipulation, placing everything that Job possesses

under the jurisdiction of the accuser, except for Job’s life (1:12). The supposed fences are

removed, and the deep ironies are employed.

The Šāṭān’s First Actions (1:13-19)

After receiving permission to act against Job, Satan puts four catastrophes into motion.

These are coupled, with two being caused by “human agents” and two by natural means in

“supernatural” ways.

As a “literary frame,” verse thirteen introduces the gathering at the oldest

son’s house, giving the location of Job’s children, and then moves into the other disasters, only

Yair Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context, JSOTSup 213, ed. David J. A.

Clines and Philip R. Davies (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 234.

Boss, Human Consciousness, 27.

Wilson, Job, 43.

111

to return to the death of his children in verse nineteen.

Another literary feature is the repeated

phrase, “I alone have escaped to tell you” (1:15-18), spoken by each surviving servant who

returns to give Job even more terrible news. The four reports are as follows:

• Report One – The theft of Job’s oxen and donkeys, along with the death of their

attending servants by the Sabeans, save one (1:15).

• Report Two – “The fire of God fell from heaven and burned up the sheep and the

servants,” save one (1:16). The phrase, fire of God, is a reference to the natural

phenomena of a “tremendous bolt of lightning,” and not that God has rained down

literal fire upon the sheep as some vengeful act.

• Report Three – The Chaldeans divided up into three groups, stole all the camels, and

slaughtered the servants, save one (1:17).

• Report Four – A violent wind “came from across the wilderness,” causing the

collapse of his oldest son’s house, resulting in the death of all Job’s children and

attending servants, save one (1:18).

Hartley summarizes the magnitude of these events by recognizing that disaster and

tragedy came from “all four points of the compass: The Sabeans from the south, lightning from a

storm out of the west, the Chaldeans from the north, and the treacherous sirocco,” the great wind,

“blowing off the desert to the east. The number four also symbolizes full measure, totality.”

Reading through the list of these attacks, one can only imagine what receiving the barrage of

messages must have been like for Job and his wife.

O’Connor, Job, 14.

Hartley, Job, 101.

Ibid.

112

The Second Gathering (1:20-22; 2:1-7)

The second gathering demonstrates the patience of God as the śāṭān escalates his plan.

God’s opening statement in verses 2:1-3 includes the previously discussed repetitions with

noteworthy additions that set the scene for another verdict and attack on Job. The tone of the text

changes in the NASB, and this is relayed to the reader by the addition of exclamation points to

the śāṭān’s responses in verses four and five. These visual cues for the reader are not present in

the original Hebrew and Greek, but the word usage is adequate to convey the same tenor. Verse

five in the HB is posed as a question, with the śāṭān asking, “Will he not blaspheme You to Your

face” (2:5b HB)?

The Šāṭān’s Posture and Position (2:1-2)

The śāṭān’s posture and position are different in the second chapter. The sons of God are

gathering to “present themselves to the Lord,” and he has “come among them” again (2:1). He

still does not belong, but he assumes the same posture as the other angelic participants. On this

occasion, he can stand before the Lord and report on what has occurred and how Job responded

to the catastrophes he set into motion. From the recounting of the scene, similar to Zechariah 3, it

does not appear that he reports since God is already aware of the outcome. The position of the

adversary has not changed, and the flurry of activity with Job has been reduced to the same daily

existence of “roaming” and “walking” the earth (2:2). He has returned, accepting a measure of

humiliation because he wants to escalate his oppression of Job.

The accuser has little faith in human beings compared to God. He believes that Job is not

the man God described in chapter one. Charles Walkley defines this adversary’s sentiment,

positing, “He never trusts man’s goodness. He imputes bad motives. He never sees any good in

113

mankind, he is sneering, beguiling, and always deceiving.”

Using such a description of

demonic forces, in general, is juxtaposed against a God who emits and imputes goodness. He

gives grace to those who fall short, restoring them. God cares about Job, and the adversarial

accuser wants to destroy Job because of his hatred for godliness and divine goodness.

Chung is discontented with such an assessment. In his study, he purports that the Joban

śāṭān “by no means appears … as God’s opponent” and “simply carries out his function as an

instrument for testing God’s servant.”

If he is merely a functionary of God’s court, as an angel

in right standing who does not possess any animosity against God and man, his accusations

would focus more on Job’s behavior, and the situation would not require the escalation of Job 2.

Job passes the first test, and the accuser will demand another because he is not what Chung

portrays.

God’s Rebuttal and Accusation (2:3)

Likened to earthly legal proceedings, rebuttals are timed for effectiveness and accuracy

and may present accusations as a form of defense. God does not offer any contradictory evidence

against the śāṭān’s arguments in chapter one. In chapter two, he repeats his previous testimony.

He adds a rebuttal to challenge the accuser’s claim that Job would “curse him to his face” (1:11).

God puts the current situation into perspective. He issues a challenge and does not leave it open

to interpretation; he does not infer his meaning but directly states his accusation against the

śāṭān:

Challenge: “And he still holds firm to his integrity” (2:3).

o Accusation: “You incited me against him to ruin him without cause” (2:3).

Charles Thomas Walkley, Commentary on the Book of Job (London, England: Revell, 1917), 8, qtd. in

Vicchio, Job, 53.

Chung, “Concept of Satan,” 210-11.

114

Boss states, “God permits suffering while explicitly recognizing that it is undeserved, a

possibility later to be recognized by Job himself, but not by his friends.”

Lingering behind the

words and disturbing images of the Prologue are introductions to the themes of divine retribution

and theodicy. These concepts will dominate the Dialogue but will not reveal a man who sincerely

waivers in his beliefs. Job resolves to submit to the will of the Lord (1:20-22).

Job’s Posture and Position (1:20-22)

Job’s initial reactions are not disclosed, as servant after servant comes forward with

increasingly devastating revelations (1:15-19). Once the litany of bad news comes to an end, Job

stands, rends his clothes, and shaves his head (1:20). The rending of clothes is an ancient

demonstration that has become an iconic Jewish “expression of fear, horror, consternation, or

dismay over a calamity that has directly and indirectly affected the person performing the

action.”

Job should not be criticized for the descriptive absence of his emotions (e.g., yelling

and crying). In context, this is a display of Jewishness even if it lacks the dynamic illustration

present in other OT representations (Judg 11:35; 2 Sam 1:11-12; 1 Kgs 2:12). He accepted

ancient Jewish practices despite being a Gentile God-fearer and possibly a convert through

marriage. R. Aryeh A. Frimer shares, “How Jews act in times of tragedy and crisis reveals much

about Jewish values and ideals − and much about Judaism’s perception of the meaning and

importance of life.”

Job’s response is one of humility and submission, both in word and deed.

Boss, Human Consciousness, 28.

Of significance, Job tore his    (me'îl), which was a “special type of clothing, a mantle worn by

distinguished persons.” The most common Hebrew word for cloth or a piece of clothing is  (beḡeḏ, singular) or

   (begādîm, plural); W. Thiel, s.v. “qāra,” in TDOT, vol. 13, ed. D. W. Stott, G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and

H. J. Fabry (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004), 175-8; Thiel also qtd. in Obiorah M. Jerome

and Favour C. Uroko, “Tearing of Clothes: A Study of an Ancient Practice in the Old Testament,” VEcc 39, no. 1

(2018): 6.

Aryeh A. Frimer, “Insights into Mourning,” TJOJT 44, no. 4 (Winter, 2011): 41.

115

Job fell to his knees before God in worship, naked and bereft, and began to pray. His

nakedness was symbolic of his birth, and he would pass on in death in the same manner (1:21).

Job states,    ('āšûḇ šāmâ, translated as “I shall return there”), and the referent for “there”

is not his mother’s womb; it is another place after death. In the HB, the place he refers to is  

(Šǝ'ōl; Sheol), which is a place where the dead are buried “far below the earth (Ps 62:10),” “a pit”

(Ezek 26:20), and a place of “darkness and dust, of shadow rather than substance.”

Job

describes it as a “land of darkness and deep shadow” (Job 10:21).

From a position of contemplating his own life and death, he attributes all that has

happened to the Lord and resolves to bless his name despite the horrific circumstances. Andersen

points out that Job does not blame the Sabeans, the Chaldeans, or his servants as possible

“secondary causes,” only the God who gives and takes away (1:21).

The acknowledgment of

the Lord’s hand as a matter of his authority is important because Job does not charge him with

blame. This kind of blame is known as   (ti𝑝lâ), in that Job could charge God with acting

unseemly, unsavory, or “doing something foolish.”

Job did not sin, spurring his unknown

adversary to demand further action.

The Šāṭān Counters and God Responds (2:4-6)

Job has lost a great deal; even so, he still experiences yir'aṯ Yǝhovâ. He has next to

nothing and acknowledges the sovereignty of God despite his anguish. In response to God’s

rebuttal, the accuser issues his final challenge and accusation:

Clement J. McNaspy, “Sheol in the Old Testament,” CBQ 6, no. 3 (July, 1944): 331.

Andersen, Job, 98.

Ibid.; GHCLOT, s.v. “ ,” 871-2.

116

• Challenge 4: “Skin for Skin! Yes, all that a man has, he will give for his life.

However, reach out with Your hand, and touch his bone and his flesh; he will curse

You to Your face” (2:4)!

o Accusation 4: You limited Job’s testing to control the outcome, which is why he

did not curse you.

Anthony Selvaggio explains three views on the limits of Job’s persecution: (1) the

“Personal Attack on Job View,” (2) the “Unfair Test View,” and (3) the “Recapitulation of

Original Accusation View.”

In chapter one, God granted permission over “all that [Job] has” to

the šāṭān, but he did not include Job’s physicality (1:12). This statement embodies the first two

views in that Job was prohibited from an “attack on Job’s body” (Personal Attack View) and

preventing a physical attack “restricted the extent of the test,” causing it to be “unfair” (Unfair

Test View).

Closely related, the third view espouses that if the šāṭān had been given full access

to Job and his life, a curse upon Job’s whole person would have incited Job to curse God’s

person.

God meets this last challenge and veiled accusation with capitulation⎯challenge

accepted. God grants his request, “Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life” (2:6). The

accuser cannot complain about the limitation of not being able to kill Job, for if he died without

having cursed God, nothing would be proven. Pushing Job to the brink of death in total misery

should be enough, or so he thought.

As mentioned, the NASB uses exclamation points to infer that the accuser’s tone was bold and

aggressive when he responds to God’s rebuttal and follow-up accusation (2:3). One can imagine that the fiend would

not take kindly to being humiliated, perhaps displaying frustration and bitterness at being held to account.

Anthony T. Selvaggio, Considering Job: Reconciling Sovereignty and Suffering (Grand Rapids, MI:

Reformation Heritage Books, 2021), 28.

Ibid.

117

The Šāṭān’s Final Actions (2:7)

The šāṭān leaves the gathering and immediately acts against Job. His direct action causes

Job’s body to be covered with “severe boils from the sole of his foot to the top of his head” (2:7).

The HB describes this disease using the noun    (šiḥīn). Šiḥīn is translated as boils or ulcers in

several scriptures (Exod 9:9-11; Deut 28:27, 35; 2 Kgs 20:7; Isa 38:21; Hos 5:13). In

Deuteronomy 28:35, the boils are covering the same area as described in verse 2:7.

Job’s condition seems to be more severe than that of boils, and many arguments have

been made over the years for such maladies as leprosy, syphilis, elephantiasis, scabies, scurvy,

smallpox, and erysipelas.

While leprosy has been the most favored and consistent description,

elephantiasis has been strongly considered since “the primary culprit in the disease are two

species of worms” (7:5).

Hartley acknowledges this symptom among the catalog of other

symptoms he discovers in the text. Besides the presence of worms, Hartley records fourteen

symptoms: “painful pruritus (2:8), disfiguration (2:12), purulent sores that scab over, crack, and

ooze (7:5), … fever with chills (21:6; 30:30), darkening and shriveling of the skin (30:30), eyes

red and swollen from weeping (16:16), diarrhea (30:27), sleeplessness and delirium (7:4, 13-14),

choking (7:15), bad breath (19:17), emaciation (19:20), and excruciating pain throughout his

body (30:17).”

Vicchio, Job, 57; Thierry Appelboom, “Job of the Bible: Leprosy or Scabies?” Mount Sinai Journal of

Medicine 74, no. 1 (2007): 36.

Vicchio, 58; Bible translations have used leprosy as a means to identify Job’s illness; however, the

English translation of leprosy “is much more specific than the original Hebrew term,” states Eichman. Maas

acknowledges that “the writer of Job clearly uses” Job’s malady “as an illness,” but it should not be equated to

Hansen’s Disease, the modern term for several conditions that fall under the umbrella of leprosy; Phillip Eichman,

“The History, Biology & Medical Aspects of Leprosy,” The American Biology Teacher 61, no. 7 (September, 1996):

490; David Michael Maas, “A Literary Diagnosis of Leprosy: The Special Case of Leviticus Rabbah, Tanḥuma &

Numbers Rabbah” (PhD diss., Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, 2007), 219.

Hartley, Job, 106.

118

The effect of these symptoms moves beyond his physical person, for such a horrific and

dire affliction would have affected him holistically. Some severe illnesses could have made him

“a social pariah;” he would be “an outcast.”

Almost everything that made Job a pillar in the

community is stripped from him socially and spiritually. David Maas acknowledges,

When the three threads of Job’s physical symptoms, social ostracism and sin accusations come

together, their pattern reveals biblical leprosy. Even if another medical condition may more closely

mirror the physical symptoms, they all fail to explain the extreme social rejection or the moralistic

undertones so crucial in the unfolding of Job’s story. The writer … develops his concept of leprosy in

a unique way by concentrating on the relationship between man, God, and suffering.

In alignment with Maas, Selvaggio explains, “By attacking his skin, Satan has isolated Job in his

suffering.”

Everyone closest to him would question whether he is “blameless and upright,”

God-fearing, and able to turn “away from evil” (1:1).

Contextual Synopsis

The first two chapters contain more than a biographical sketch of Job and other characters

in the book. First, the text paints a picture of Job’s devotion to various areas of his life, including

his faith, fortune, and family. There is a sense that Job is dedicated and consistently lives for the

Lord until his posture and position are radically affected by the outcomes of the heavenly scenes

that unfold outside of his knowledge.

Second, the heavenly gatherings are revealed to happen at a specific place and time,

occurring regularly. Various levels of angels, who are in a right standing with God and have

certain responsibilities, attend these special observances. Other celestial beings, like the šāṭān or

Satan, may attend and procedurally participate as fallen sons of God. Even though they no longer

have a holy placement in the heavenly court, they still fall under the Divine’s power and

Selvaggio, Considering Job, 29.

Maas, “A Literary Diagnosis,” 219.

Ibid.

119

authority. Prophetic visions from the OT shed light on these details and have assisted in making

these determinations.

The scenes in the heavenly court unfold as the šāṭān challenges God and levies inferred

accusations about his behavior toward Job. God is confident in his testimony about Job’s

spiritual state, but he does not give unlimited authority to the accuser. The śāṭān’s actions cannot

undermine God because he is wiser and more powerful than any other force. Despite the attacks

against Job, his response affirms God’s authority to give and take away; Job does not sin and

proves God’s testimony true. The accuser may be concerned about Job’s motivations, but this is

only to explain that God is solely responsible for his success due to his favorable and consistent

providence toward Job. Even though God allows the accuser to afflict Job’s body as his final

attempt to compromise Job’s integrity, satisfaction will be denied.

The sāṭān disappears following 2:7, but the aftermath of the gatherings leaves an imprint

of Job’s suffering on every page thereafter. The introduction of the legal metaphor, along with

the themes of divine retribution and theodicy, will dominate the Dialogue and inspire the

Monologue. The appearance of this adversary is part of the rise of Satan, and his accusatory

language and evil deeds are a product of the origin of evil. On the other hand, the outcomes of

Job 1–2 lay the groundwork for an epic story about Job’s persecution, how all the characters

approached this time of trial and testing, and the hope that God would reward the faithful.

120

CHAPTER FIVE: THE ORIGIN AND IDENTITY OF GOD

Understanding the arguments against God’s sovereignty in Job 1–2 is aided by exploring

the origin and identity of God. The satanic influence imposed upon humanity is rooted in

fostering disbelief in God’s person and position by connecting him to the gods of the ANE. The

mythical nature of religion and culture arose from the absence and denial of proper divine

knowledge, and this perpetuated the need to create new identities to govern the heavens and the

earth. The most effective means to do this was to displace God by merging his origin and identity

with false gods, represented in regional pantheons and numbering in the thousands.

The

comparison of the Bible to ANE texts through the study of linguistics and religion can help

isolate the uniqueness of God’s person, his relationship with the Jews, and, by extension, all

Creation. Despite the scholarly associations with ANE gods, like Baal and El, God displays

continuous commitment, consistent engagement through his constant presence, and righteous

judgment born out of his perfectly just nature. Discussing this underlying context contributes to

the theological explanation of the Jewish structure of sovereignty through conceptual

explanations of the applications of concepts like theocracy, theodicy, and retribution in the book.

Yahweh and the Ancient Near East

The origin of Yahweh, in the greater context of the ANE, is distinguished from all other

known gods due to the universal “divisions” of “cosmic space” and “divine powers.”

The

associations between the gods and the God of the early Israelites may have been intertwined at a

rudimentary level; however, he was different from other ANE gods and divine functionaries. His

Jan Assmann, Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism, George L. Mosse Series in

Modern European Cultural and Intellectual History (Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2008), 64-5.

Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic

Texts (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2001), 30.

121

expectations and interactions with human beings were distinct, revealing him to be the Creator of

cosmic space, the Governor of everything in existence, and the only deity with verifiable power

and authority. The acceptance of his preeminence set up a national theocracy for his people,

serving as the basis for theological concepts that developed over time through ongoing exposure.

Connecting Yahweh to the ANE

There are several critical differences between ancient Jewish beliefs and the cultic beliefs

and practices of the ANE, the first of which is the responsibility and culpability of human beings.

One cannot escape the epic battles between the gods when reading old literature. Numerous

ancient writings introduce the idea that humans are not ultimately responsible for chaos in the

world, for chaos gave birth to it, and the gods ruled it.

Chaos can be viewed as a cosmogonic

disorder, like the elements brought together to give order to the universe and the result of divine

interactions between the gods and their interventions in human history. John Oswalt explains,

“The mythmakers consistently neglect … the analysis of human choices and behaviors in the

past to see how those might have shaped the present.”

In an attempt to obfuscate the obvious,

ancient writings delve into the divine realm to hold gods responsible for feud and famine, disease

Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman texts are associated with biblical comparisons of Yahweh,

ANE gods, other divine functionaries, and their interactions with human beings. Applicable Mesopotamian texts are

The Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 2900–2400 BC), The Epic of Atra-Hasis (c. eighteenth century BC), and the Enūma Eliš

(c. fourteenth century BC). The Egyptian creation-chaos myths offer texts that center on four Egyptian cities and

different gods, such as: Hermopolis’ Ogdoad (third millennium BC); the Heliopolis’ Atum (c. 3000 BC); the

Memphite theology of Ptah (Shabaka stone, c. eighth-seventh century BC; the Hymns of Ptah, c. second millennium

BC); and the Thebes’ Amun. Egyptian gods existed separately from humans, interacting in the realm of nehe and

Egyptian temples. The Greek gods saw humans as being free to act in tandem with the gods, and interactions were

based on the gods’ desires, whims, and mortality, like Plato’s Timaeus (c. fourth century BC) and Homer’s Iliad and

Odyssey (c. eighth century BC). The Roman poem Metamorphoses by Ovid (AD 8) is another example; John N.

Oswalt, Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?: The Bible Among the Myths (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,

2009), 49; M. V. Seton-William, Egyptian Legends and Stories (New York: NY: Barns & Noble, 1999), 6-17;

Heather Merrick, “The Role of the Greek Gods and Yahweh: Emotions or Morals?” Draftings 2 (1987): 17-22.

Oswalt, Unique Revelation, 49.

122

and desire, and heaven and hell.

The endurance of this mindset has sometimes positioned the

Bible as a literary imitator of other extant ANE works within scholarly and secular circles.

The first significant difference is that Yahweh takes responsibility for his actions in all

six categories to orchestrate his divine will and recognizes man’s culpability as a contributory

factor.

God gives men the right to choose, but men regularly harden their hearts by giving in to

sinful desires with eager repetition and without repentance. When repentance causes the heart to

soften, the desire for godliness ensues.

Second, the literary tension between Yahweh and the ANE gods in the OT defines his

biblical placement. Comparative investigations of biblical and mythical texts may present him as

another placeholder in a long line of literary gods responsible for good and evil in deference to

his biblical persona. The development of myths proved helpful in explaining the unexplainable in

the world, “human social situations,” “other historical events,” and the necessity of cultic rituals.

Myths distracted their authors and audiences from the human propagation of evil and avoided

Hell is being used above as a general term for one of two categories of the afterlife. Technically, it is

related to post-resurrection teachings. In the ANE, including Jewish traditions, locations in the after-life were

diverse in description and purpose, such as: (1) places of consciousness that may or may not have royal rulers; (2) a

place of death and life; (3) a holding space where souls may have been imprisoned to await punishment; and (4)

locations that were inhabited by humans and/or divine beings; N. Wyatt, “The Concept and Purpose of Hell: Its

Nature and Development in West Semitic Thought,” Numen 56, no. 2/3 (2009): 161-84.

Smith, The Origins, 17, 23; Mark S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in

the Biblical World, FAT 57, ed. Bernd Janowski, Mark S. Smith, and Hermann Spieckermann (Tübingen, Germany:

Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 10, 13, 96; See Robert Oden, “Myth and Mythology (OT),” in ABD, vol. 4, ed. D. N.

Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992), 949.

Five of the six categories listed in the previous paragraph classify some of God’s actions in the OT: (1)

feud (Deut 20:16; Josh 6:20-21; 1 Sam 15:3; Judg 14:19); (2) famine (Deut 28:22-42; 2 Kgs 6:25-28; 8:2, 12; 1 Sam

21:1; Jer 14:14; 19:9; 42:17; Amos 8:11); (3) disease (Gen 12:17; 16:2; Exod 12:29-30; Num 12:10; 1 Sam 5:6, 9,

12; 2 Sam 24:15); (4) desire, illustrated by the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exod 4:21; 9:21; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10;

14:4, 8, 17; and (5) heaven (Gen 1:1-2; Ps 124:8; Jer 23:24; 32:17; Amos 9:6). God is different from mythical gods

because the desires hidden in the hearts of men can be connected to his actions and inaction. He hardened Pharaoh’s

heart against allowing the Israelites to leave Egypt based on Pharaoh’s deep desire to keep them. Releasing them

would diminish the ruler’s authority and power by severely affecting the social, political, and economic agendas of

Egypt.

William Bascom, “The Myth-Ritual Theory,” Journal of American Folklore 70, no. 276 (April-June,

1957): 103; See also J. C. L. Gibson, “The Theology of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle,” Orientalia 53, no. 2 (February,

1984): 203.

123

addressing human culpability. The translation of ancient texts and artifacts reveals the historical

and literary development of “anthropomorphic deities and monstrous divine creatures” that

established direct correlations from the gods to the organization of the cosmos and their inherent

purposes for existence.

These collectively false correlations contributed to the evolution of well-established

pantheons, with a plethora of ANE representations. For example, Mesopotamia had a

documented “pantheon of over three thousand gods,” with a “core pantheon of some ten to

twenty deities of nature,” and up to “twelve” that were recognized as “Great Gods.”

The Epic of

Gilgamesh, the Enūma Eliš, and other Mesopotamian works yield frequently cited examples that

lend weight to arguments against the uniqueness of Yahweh, the OT, and the Israelite faith.

The West and East Semitic belief systems also espoused an array of gods, like those

found in Canaanite and Ugaritic writings. The Hebrews and their descendants struggled with

polytheistic worship related to gods, such as Baal and El. William Barker offers a means to

understand the Canaanite influences upon the linguistic and contextual development of Scripture

and the person of God.

Barker and Mark Smith purport that OT references parallel the Ugaritic

work, Baal Cycle.

Barker classifies biblical references believed to be connected to Ugaritic

Smith, The Origins, 8, 27; Frans A. M. Wiggerman, “The Mesopotamian Pandemonium: A Provisional

Census,” SMSR 77, no. 2 (February, 2011): 299.

Wiggerman, “Pandemonium,” 299.

The Epic of Gilgamesh evolved over centuries as a story about the ruler of Uruk, named Gilgamesh. He

defeats a raging bull sent by Ishtar, the goddess of love, because he rejects her proposal of marriage. His best friend

and fellow warrior, Ekidnu, is killed by the gods for destroying the bull. The Enūma Eliš is a creation epic, featuring

Marduk as the creator of the universe, and he battles against Tiamat, the sea goddess; Sandars, The Epic of

Gilgamesh, 61-119; L. W. King, Enuma Elish: The Seven Tablets of the History of Creation (1902, repr.

Minneapolis, MN: Filiquarian Publishing LLC, 2007), 21-8.

Barker, “Ugaritic Literature,” 121-4.

Ibid., 124; Smith, 17-8, 22-4.

124

literary characters into four categories of “definite, probable, plausible or merely possible.”

Smith also claims that specific OT passages are mythical and were well-known “among” coastal

peoples “in what was regarded as Canaan by the biblical authors.”

Baal is distinctly mentioned

in English translations of biblical texts. El is unrecognizable as a distinct god unless reading

commentaries or other scholarly works as an accompaniment to biblical study.

Of further note,

the common noun for 'ēl is also a nondescript word that means God or gods.

Separate or the Same God

The Canaanite pantheon indicates that El was the ultimate deity during the Bronze

(3000–1200 BC) and Iron (1200–586 BC) ages and shares similarities to Israel’s patriarchal

deity, known as    ('ēl šaday). Studying Ugaritic literature raises the question of why El, as a

distinct and separate god, is not mentioned more in the Bible as part of the Israelites’ polytheistic

struggle. Smith contemplates three possibilities: (a) “El was the original god of early Israel;” (b)

Yahweh was the “warrior-god” of the El-led “Israelite pantheon;” and (c) El and Yahweh were

eventually “identified as a single god.”

Smith’s suppositions do not include Yahweh as the one

and only supreme God.

The name El is featured in the OT as a stand-alone name for Israel’s God and as part of

phrases that serve as names for God due to its Semitic linguistic origin. The singular usage of  

Barker highlights a list of ten Ugaritic “figures” that fall into one of his listed categories (El, Baal, Mot,

Athirat/Asherah, Litan, Rapa'ūma, Shapshu, Yamm, Anat, and Dan'el), as compiled by Michael Williams; Barker,

“Ugaritic Literature,” 124; See Michael J. Williams, Basics of Ancient Ugaritic: A Concise Grammar, Workbook,

and Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 14-22.

Smith identifies OT passages as being mythical by using Baal Cycle as a measure (Gen 1–2; 6:1-4; Exod

15; Deut 32:8-27; 33:2-5; Josh 2:2-5; Pss 74:12-17; 78:21-72; 82:1-7; 105:12-45; 135:5-12; Isa 14:12-15; Ezek

28:11-19; Hab 3:3-15; and Dan 7–12); Smith, The Origins, 17-8, 22-4.

Frank M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 44.

Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (Louisville, KY: Westminster John

Knox Press, 1992), 18.

Smith, 49, 143-4.

125

('ēl) “appears over 250 times in the Tanakh,” and 'ēl phrases are “construct forms” that use

“additional words” to define God’s person and “further … distinguish Him from false gods.”

Despite his suppositions, Smith determines that the two gods were separate and later merged into

the same god. He equates the prefixes and suffixes in many Hebrew names with divine

connotations that are unrelated to Yahweh or later subsumed. Using ANE naming conventions,

Smith asserts that “the element ‘*-ēl’” in yiśra-ēl does not refer to Yahweh; otherwise, the name

of his nation would have been “*yiśra-yahweh, or perhaps better *yiśra-yāh.”

The frequent use

of El in Semitic writings led Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), Frank M. Cross (1921–2012), and

Johannes C. de Moor (1935–2023) to conclude that they were the same.

However, some verses

and passages purportedly describe a relationship between the two by mentioning them

separately.

Separated in Selected Passages

Yahweh and El are reportedly both mentioned in selected passages, such as Genesis 49,

Psalm 82, and verses in the book of Job (i.e., 36:26). The cited implications of singular uses of El

and 'ēl constructs are subjective and even more remote is the conclusion that El is mentioned

with the same frequency and context as Baal. Implying or decisively stating that El and other

gods were in the presence of Yahweh, or vice versa, is impossible since ANE gods are mythical.

Construct forms include names, such as:    , El Echad, the One God (Mal 2:10);   , El Tzaddik,

the Righteous God (Isa 45:21);    , El Shaddai, the All-Sufficient God (most prominent in Genesis and Job,

occurring over fifty times, including thirty-one times in Job);   , El Elyon, the Most High God (Gen 14:20; Ps

9:2);  , El Olam, the Everlasting God (Gen 21:33; Pss 90:1-3; 93:2; Isa 26:4);  , El Haggadol, the Great

God (Deut 10:17);  , El Hakkavod, the God of Glory (Ps 29:3); John J. Parsons, “Hebrew Names of God: El

and El Constructs Given in Tanakh,” (PDF), Hebrew for Christians (2021): 1-3.

Smith, The Origins, 142-3.

John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, JSOTSup 265 (2000, repr., Sheffield,

England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 14; Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, trans. J. S.

Black and A. Menzies (Edinburgh, Scotland: A & C Black, 1885), 433; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 60-75; Johannes C.

de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 2nd ed., rev. ed. (Leuven, Germany: Leuven University Press, 1997), 310-369.

126

Smith claims that Genesis 49 refers to    (Yǝhōvâ) in verse eighteen and constructs

initially reflect El in verses twenty-four and -five. In verse twenty-four, God is referenced as “the

stone of     (yiśrā'ēl).” Verse twenty-five begins with   (represented as a helper) and is

followed later by    (šaday; represented as the blesser). As opposed to other biblical uses of

šaday, it appears in this instance without the prefix 'ēl. These could very well refer to the same

supreme deity (Yahweh) using different names for self-reference (Exod 6:2-3), but Smith

separates them as individual deities based on his study of regional texts.

The previously mentioned list of 'ēl constructs relating to the name of God could be

ascribed to any divine being to bolster its sovereignty.

Therefore, Barker and Smith’s

deductions are inconclusive. As an example, God is viewed as one who provides help (Pss 33:20;

37:40; 46:1; 54:4; 121:1-2; 2 Chron 14:11). From his own mouth, he reassures the Jews three

times in one chapter that they are not to fear because he will “help” them (Isa 41:10, 13-14).

Many OT verses describe Yahweh as one who blesses and provides examples of his blessings

(Gen 1:28; Exod 23:25; Deut 15:6; 30:16; Ps 29:11; Jer 17:7-8; Mal 3:10).

In Psalm 82, a mixture of singular and construct forms of 'el has instigated much debate.

The chapter boasts three Hebrew words that have been attributed to Yahweh and El by scholars

over the centuries (e.g.,  , 'ělōhîm;  , 'ēl; and , 'elyôn), as outlined in Table 5.1.

Smith, The Origins, 141, 144.

See Footnote 19.

Two translations of the Tanakh were used when gathering information for Table 5.1, The Complete

Jewish Bible (CJB) and The Jewish Bible (JB). The CJB is a modern English translation, and the JB is a 1917

English translation based on the Leningrad Codex. In some Greek and Latin translations, the chapter numbering

differs from other translations. Chapter eighty-two becomes chapter eighty-one; The Complete Jewish Bible with

Rashi Commentary, s.v. “Psalm 82,” Chabad, https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-

Bible-with-Rashi.htm; Hebrew-English Tanakh: The Jewish Bible, trans. Jewish Publication Society of America

(Skokie, IL: Varda Books, 1999), 1516; Katrin Hauspie et al., eds., Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, rev. ed.

(Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003); The Septuagint with Apocrypha: English, (PDF), trans. Sir

Lancelot C. L. Brenton (London, England: Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., 2010); Latin-English Study Bible, trans.

Ron L. Conte, Jr., https://sacredbible.org/studybible/index.htm.

127

Table 5.1: Varied Translations of 'el in Psalm 82

Form of

'el

Verse (x)

Translations

NASB

Tanakh

LXX

Vulgate

 

('ělōhîm)

1 (2x)

God

Θεός (theos); God

Deus; God

rulers

judges (CJB)

judges (JB)

θεοὺς (theous);

them (gods,

magistrate, judges)

iudicat;

judges

6 (1x)

gods

angelic creatures (CJB)

godlike beings (JB)

θεοí (theoi); gods

dii; gods

8 (1x)

God

God (CJB)

God (JB)

Θεός (theos); God

Deus; God

 

('ēl)

1 (1x)

his

(God)

of God (CJB)

of God (JB)

θεῶν (theōn);

of gods

deorum;

gods

 

('elyôn)

6 (1x)

Most

High

Most High (CJB)

Most High (JB)

ὑφίστου (hypsistou);

Most High

Excelsi;

High

The plethora of English translations of the MT, the HB (based on differing codices), the LXX,

and the Vulgate have contributed to false attributions of God-like presence and actions to

Yahweh and El. For those who promote them as separate gods and include El in the Bible, Psalm

82 is one of the texts used to substantiate their claims.

In most versions, the main source of confusion is related to four occurrences of 'ělōhîm

(82:1, 6, 8) and whether these correspond to Yahweh, gods, or human judges. W. Graham

Scroggie translates 82:1 in this manner, “Elohim is standing in the congregation of El; He will

judge in the midst of the Elohim.”

Scroggie ascribes both occurrences of 'ělōhîm to humans,

meaning those who have been placed over the Israelites as judges. El refers to Yahweh, who has

appointed these judges as his agents, and he will judge them in turn. Rashi deduces that God has

put himself in the middle of the congregation “to see whether they [the judges] judge fairly” and

makes no mention of El.

The verses to follow recognize “the weak and fatherless,” the

W. Graham Scroggie, A Guide to the Psalms: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Psalms, vol. I-IV (Grand

Rapids, MI: Kregal Publications, 1995), 191.

Sefaria, “Rashi on Psalms,” 82:1, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Psalms?tab=contents.

128

“afflicted and destitute,” and the “needy” (82:4). None of the Semitic writings depict El as being

overly concerned for human beings and any unjust treatment visited upon them.

In the book of Job, three formal names are attributed to God (El, Eloah, and Shaddai).

The name El appears over thirty times, and its highest concentration is found in the Elihu

speeches.

In Job 36:26, Elihu refers to God ('el) and declares him great and ancient. John Day

asserts that Yahweh’s wisdom (Gen 3:5-6, 22; Job 15:7-8; Ezek 28:12, 17) and age (Job 10:5; Ps

102:25; Dan 7:9) are appropriated from the traditions of El.

In comparing several Jewish

scholars’ commentaries on Genesis 49, Psalm 82, and the aforementioned Joban passages,

explanations on the divine identity of El only refer to God.

Separated by Dissimilarities

Day has studied the work of scholars (Wellhausen, Cross, F. Lakkegaard, and Patrick D.

Miller) and concludes that dissimilarities in descriptions of El and Yahweh affirm separate

identities.

With so many scriptures attesting to the goodness and “fierceness” of God, “Ugaritic

texts” describe El as “wholly benevolent in nature,” according to Day.

The extensive work of

Cross cites examples that portray El as a warrior in title and actions, one who directs other gods

and men to “prepare and conduct … cosmogonic battles.”

Dissimilar to Yahweh, El regularly

forgoes direct participation for personal pleasures (i.e., the company of his wives), sees to his

Snaith, Job, 10.

Ibid.; Harold Wilmington, “Article 18: Job at a Glance,” The Owner’s Manual File 28 (2017): 63.

Day, Gods and Goddesses, 18-19.

Ibid., 14-5.

Ibid., 18-19.

Cross mentions El’s instructions to Kirta (Keret), a Hurrian king in Mesopotamia. He tells him to “secure

a bride” by going to war with “Pabil the king of Udm,” having had seven previous wives die. This myth is partially

recorded in part on three Ugaritic tablets by Sakkunyaton (i.e., Sukkunyaton and Sanchuniathon), a Phoenician

author. These works were thought to be translated by Philo and recorded by Eusebius. What is unclear is whether

Sakkunyaton is a historical person or represents a mythical human who recorded cultural myths; Cross, Canaanite

Myth, 40; See Patrick D. Miller, Jr., “El the Warrior,” HRT 60, no. 4 (October, 1967): 411-31.

129

best interests, and acquiesces in the face of opposition.

Since humans invented him, he displays

more human characteristics than divine transcendence and immutability.

Miller agrees with Marvin Pope and John Gray’s suppositions about ancient descriptions

of El. He lacks forcefulness and has “a tolerant and creative character,” even though the texts

portray him as having absolute authority and power.

Other profound dissimilarities emerge in

multiple stories involving his sons, Yamm, Baal, and Mot; his daughter, Anat (Anath); and his

wife, Lady Asherah.

Canaanite tradition recognizes El’s authority to deny Mot and Baal the throne, and he

elevates Yamm instead. Sources cite that Mot and Yamm were both favored by their father over

Baal, attaching the use of the phrase “darling of El” to both sons.

Yamm later demands that El

surrender Baal to him since his brother has been vocal about Yamm’s tyrannical behavior.

delivers his favored son under threat, knowing that both personal and positional harm would

come to them.

The descriptions and actions of El do not support him being the same deity as God. God

freely offered his son up to a temporary physical death to secure salvation for mankind and not

for his benefit (Lev 17:11; Rom 1:16). The existence and positions of God and Jesus Christ

would have remained unchanged if God had chosen a different path. Lady Asherah, Baal, Anat,

and Yamm manipulate El regularly, and the rise of Baal permanently ends his father’s mythical

supremacy. God is not manipulated by anyone (Rom 13:1), and Jesus possesses the same

authority and power as his father (Isa 9:6-7; Matt 28:18; Heb 1:3). Unlike El’s children, Jesus

Cross, Canaanite Myth, 43.

Miller, “El the Warrior,” 412; See also Marvin Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts (Leiden, The Netherlands:

E. J. Brill, 1955), 27-8; John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old

Testament, 2nd ed., rev. ed. (Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1965), 162.

Smith, The Origins, 35; John Barclay Burns, “The Identity of Death’s First-Born (Job XVIII 13),” VT 37,

no. 3 (July, 1987): 362; Gibson, “Ugaritic Baal Cycle,” 208.

Pope, Ugaritic Texts, 28, 68.

130

seeks to do the will of his father (Ps 40:6-8) and does not expect to replace him. Third, Jesus

Christ is still alive, and he and the Holy Spirit rule with God in Trinitarian unity (Job 19:25; John

10:30; 2 Cor 13:14; Col 2:9; Heb 1:3).

Making Comparisons

Comparing linguistics and religions within the scope of divine identities and the actions

of the ANE gods is often used to prove or disprove God’s existence. William Paden cautions that

“comparison in itself is an activity, and not a theory or ideology, but it has been a tool” that is

“employed for a range of interpretative or historical purposes.”

Comparing ancient texts

concerning mythical gods, including ANE mythical literature and translations of the OT, should

not be discouraged. Having said this, no one can be wholly successful in this endeavor because

God’s origin, identity, and existence can only be confirmed by faith.

Comparing Linguistics

Comparative linguistics should be considered in theological and biblical studies despite

differences of opinion when comparing ANE literature and textual artifacts. Ellen van Wolde

cites ground-breaking improvements that approach the whole text and look at how sentences fit

together and play off each other instead of breaking down one phrase or sentence at a time.

Instead of trying to find ways of showing the interdependence of Semitic languages, Hebrew is

being recognized as a unique “language system” and “a separate phenomenon that can be

described independently.”

William F. Paden, “Comparative Religions,” in RCSR, 2nd ed., ed. John R. Hinnells (New York, NY:

Taylor & Francis Group, 2010), 226.

Ellen van Wolde, “A Text-Semantic Study of the Hebrew Bible, Illustrated with Noah and Job,” JBL

113, no. 1 (1994): 19.

Ibid., 20-1.

131

The independence of the language is difficult to explore due to the scarcity of Hebrew

texts, an issue confirmed by van Wolde and Margaret Cohen, a specialist on Northwest Semitic

inscriptions.

Cohen explains,

Scholars are working with a limited data set, both in terms of quantity: the total number of extant

words and forms in known inscriptions; and in terms of quality: the range of topics and information

from everyday life that known inscriptions cover.

A second issue identified by van Wolde is the use of “Greek-Latin logical categories…to

describe the rules of the semantic language system,” resulting in a form of “Hebrew linguistics

that is directed at discontinuity, at logical distinctions, and at classifications that rule each other

out.”

This is evidenced in Table 5.1, where the translation of   in Psalm 82:1 in Greek and

Latin is plural (gods); however, ancient and medieval Jewish scholars and other translators

interpret the Hebrew word as singular (God).

Neither van Wolde nor Cohen discounts the value of comparative linguistics, and they

understand that discoveries of biblical texts require it, as Chapter Four mentions regarding

Deuteronomy 32. The division of the nations by Yahweh among the “sons of God” (4QDeutj) as

opposed to the “sons of Israel” (Deut 32:8) is one of the verses that benefited from studying the

whole passage using a more extensive sampling of OT passages to preserve the context. Upon

discovering the 4QDeutj fragment, comparisons revealed information that resolved several

quandaries and ignited others.

Dissimilarities between the MT, the LXX, and the Qumran fragment have been used to

support claims that El is the father of Yahweh. Supposedly, El gave Israel to him as an

inheritance since he was classed with the “angels” (LXX, Codex Vaticanus) or as one of the

van Wolde, “Text-Semantic Study,” 21; Margaret E. Cohen, “Northwest Semitic Inscriptions,” in Behind

the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber,

and John H. Walton (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018), 128.

Ibid.

van Wolde, 21.

132

“sons of God” (4QDeutj).

The use of  ('elyōn; Deut 32:8) as a Hebrew title for Yahweh is

ascribed to El in these interpretations by mistake, and Yahweh is relegated to a lesser divinity.

Using information clearly absent in 4QDeutj, the oldest fragment of this text, skews the

interpretation and does not consider the real identities of the sons of God. Contextually, the sons

of God refer to celestial beings. God gave mankind an inheritance by designating the boundaries

of nations, then assigned the nations to divine beings in the heavenly court to administrate.

All

nations were allotted except for Israel, and the “Mighty One” (Yahweh) reserved it for himself as

“his portion” (32:9).

The seepage and adaptation of most religious beliefs and practices were not perceived as

a threat within ANE communities in comparison to Jewish and Christian traditions. Moore

elaborates, “The gods are believed to approve conformity to ancestral custom in all spheres, and

the sanction of religion thus attaches to a multitude of acts of daily life and to conventional ways

of doing things which to extraneous apprehension have no religious significance.”

On the

contrary, Jewish and Christian orthodoxy document that God deemed surrounding ANE beliefs

and practices as a threat to the Israelites.

Judges 10:6 describes the diversity of neighboring

influences and the response of Israel, who served many gods (e.g., gods of Canaan, Syria, Sidon,

Moab, Ammon, and Philistia) and “forsook the Lord and did not serve him.”

Polytheism and secular monotheism are inconsistent with God’s instituted theocracy over

the Jews and those adopted into the faith. The supposition that the Masoretes changed

Deuteronomy 32:8 to avoid the implications of polytheism cannot be wholly discounted.

The

Smith, The Origins, 100.

Hendel, “Sons of God,” 11.

Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries, 3.

Exod 20:2-6; 34:14; Deut 12:29-32; Ps 97:7; 2 Kgs 17:33; Matt 6:24; Rom 1:25; 12:1-2; 1 Cor 10:14;

and Eph 5:11.

Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8,” 53-7, 61.

133

unfaithfulness of man is not just a Jewish issue; it is also a problem in all religions. The

conclusions of scholars who study ancient civilizations and religions through extant texts may

affect religious and cultural views on God’s existence and sovereignty. Despite this, God’s

positional power and authority is constant.

Comparing Religious Identities and Divine Actions

Sovereignty is a common point of comparison when it comes to ANE religious identities

and their divine actions.

Subsequently, the Joban characters, except for the śāṭān and God,

attempt to answer similar questions to that of scholars today in this regard. Do they support the

divinity and exclusive rule of God? Who is culpable or responsible for the calamities that

descend upon Job? The Prologue prompts the investigation of the origins and identities of divine

beings. God is sovereign in both the heavenly and earthly settings because he is ultimately in

control, yet evil actions are allowed limited freedom and unleash chaos in the earthly setting.

Comparing Satan, the Mimic of God

The previous comparisons in Chapter Three of the identities of the OT haśśāṭāns (human

and divine adversaries), the śāṭān of Job (a fallen son of God), and the NT Satan partially

validate the presence of vehemence for God’s ruling authority in the terrestrial and heavenly

realms.

Every action of God is “self-determined” and “self-initiated;” his “actions are driven by

the purest purposes.

Intelligent creation, defined as humans and other divine beings, are

endowed with limited free will; however, no one fully comprehends what this means in the

heavenly realms.

Paden, “Comparative Religions,” 226.

Chapter Three defines the haśśāṭāns as characters of opposition that do not always have evil intentions

and may be in service to God (Num 22:22-35), like King Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 25:9; 43:10).

Michael Barnwell, “Self-determination vs. Freedom for God and the Angels: A Problem with Anselm’s

Theory of Free Will,” Saint Anselm’s Journal 14, no. 1 (Fall, 2018): 19.

134

Satan and other fallen sons of God function within the limitations set by the Lord. Their

mental and spiritual capabilities are not greater than what God initially provided when he created

them.

Satan can only mimic the heavenly Father’s words and actions in his effort to be a god of

this world. He lacks innate goodness and has entirely forfeited the pursuit of righteousness.

Therefore, there is an element of truth in the depictions of evil in all religions and culturally

related religious activities. Paden notes that “parallels” are “easily seen as the mocking work of

Satan” and “understood to be aping or imitating … true religion” based on God’s identity.

For

example, mimicking the story of the fallen sons of God that resulted in the existence of the

Nephilim, which Smith considers to be mythical. The Sumerian Enūma Eliš and Enki and the

World Order inscriptions reflect similar mutated beings called the Annunaki (i.e., Anunnaki and

Anuna gods), who reside in both realms and interact with other gods and human beings.

Comparing Divine Discontinuity to God’s Constancy

The concept of God being without origin is challenging for human beings because their

physical world operates within a finite existence. God declares in Revelation that he is the

“Αλφα καὶ τὸ ῏Ω” (alpha and the omega); the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8).

This is a

powerful statement about the absolute continuity of his reign from the creation of the cosmos to

our present reality and beyond. The lack of continuity and longevity in the rule of ANE gods

calls their sovereignty into doubt, and ancient texts mimic the theological arguments for God’s

absolute and unending rule over the universe. “ANE pagans believed that deities had limited

Barnwell, “Self-determination,” 19.

Paden, “Comparative Religions,” 227.

Ludwig Beethoven J. Noya et al., “Theological Analysis of the Interpretation of Sons of God Based on

Genesis 6:5,” JISC 1, no. 1 (January, 2016): 54; King, Enuma Elish, 102, 128, 152; J. A. Black et al., trans., “Enki

and the World Order: Translation,” The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. Oriental Institute of the

University of Oxford, 2002, https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr113.htm.

Mounce and Mounce, Interlinear New Testament, 936, 1007, 1198.

135

spheres of jurisdiction and dwelling, and worshipers needed to go to the deities’ dwelling places

to access their presence and power,” adds Derek Brotherson.

The temporal nature of mythical

gods’ leadership is that power and position can be bestowed, transferred, and taken away. In

some cases, the gods voluntarily relinquish their authority and abandon their posts.

Divine Abandonment

Divine abandonment is a recurrent ANE literary theme and is usually accompanied by a

form of chaos (i.e., plague, famine, natural disasters, and military invasion). The comings and

goings of the gods from lands and temples were used as religious and political tools (105, ii.15-

ii.40) to explain disastrous events (105, i.37b-ii.5) and garner support for the decisions of human

rulers (105, ii.41-iii.9; 105, iii.19-29a).

In some cases, the leaders of the pantheons were

replaced altogether⎯El was replaced by Baal as head of the Canaanite pantheon, and Enlil, head

of the Mesopotamian pantheon, was replaced by Marduk (105, i.37b).

The mythical story

surrounding Marduk’s Babylonian disappearance aptly illustrates human involvement in shaping

religious responses in the past.

The Assyrians and Babylonians experienced conflict with each other as early as the

conquests of the Babylonian king, Hammurapi, in the eighteenth century BC.

The more intense

period of conflicts occurred intermittently from the thirteenth to the seventh century BC, ending

with the destruction of the Assyrian nation in 612 BC. Seventy-seven years earlier, the Assyrian

Derek Brotherson, Contextualization or Syncretism?: The Use of Other-Faith Worship Forms in the

Bible and in Insider Movements, EMSMS 10 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2021), 144.

The inscriptions of Esarhaddon are an excellent example of these assertions; Erle Leichty, The Royal

Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC), vol. 4, RINAP (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011),

203-6; Inchol Yang, “The Presence and Absence of Marduk and YHWH,” SJOT 35, no. 2 (2021): 187-8, 193.

Daniel Bercerra, “El and the Birth of the Gracious Gods,” StAnt 6, no. 1 (June, 2008): 51-6; Leichty,

Royal Inscriptions, 204; Yang, “Presence and Absence,” 192-3; Andrea Seri, “The Fifty Names of Marduk in

‘Enūma eliš,’” JAOS 126, no. 4 (October-December, 2006): 507.

HistoryWorld, “Timeline: Assyrian and Babylon,” Oxford University Press, 2012,

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191736049.timeline.0001.

136

king, Sennacherib (r. 705–681 BC), laid siege at Babylon and ruthlessly destroyed the city (689

BC).

Figure 5.1: Four-sided Monument of the Royal

Inscriptions of Esarhaddon (carved on black basalt),

featuring inscriptions that detail Esarhaddon’s restoration

efforts in Babylon, currently housed at the British

Museum (91027). © The Trustees of the British Museum,

Shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-

NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-

NC-SA 4.0) licence. https://www.britishmuseum.org/

collection/object/W_1860-1201-1.

At the time, Marduk was the city's patron god and the most prominent God in the

Babylonian kingdom. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon detail how Marduk left the city

vulnerable when he departed his temple and the Babylonian lands, vowing not to return for

HistoryWorld, “Timeline: Assyrian and Babylon.”

137

seventy years (105, ii.15-19; 114, ii.12-18; see Figure 5.1).

He was angry over his people’s sins

and the “neglect” of their “cultic duties” (105, i.20-37a; 108, i.16–ii.14).

In historical contrast,

Sennacherib attempted to replace Marduk with Assur, the Assyrian god and the namesake of his

nation’s capital. He removed Marduk’s statue from Babylon and took it to Assur’s capital.

This

was a common tactic after a foreign power had conquered a city. The Babylonians never

accepted Assur (the god) or Sennacherib.

Esarhaddon (r. 681–669 BC) assumed the Assyrian throne due to the untimely death of

his oldest brother in 694 BC, followed by the murder of his father by two of his other brothers in

681 BC. He faced serious domestic, military, and political uncertainties. Winning favor with the

Babylonians was essential to him, and he prioritized rebuilding Marduk’s temples in the Esagila

complex in Babylon (109, iv.1-21; 113, 15b-19).

He concocted a story for the return of Marduk

to win favor with the people. In Esarhaddon’s inscriptions, Marduk told the king that he was

chosen to “put the matters right” and to be Marduk’s protector (114, ii.19–iii.8).

Marduk

returned after eleven years of silence in Babylon (114, ii.12-18).

Constant Governance and Divine Actions

God has never abandoned his creation, although the implication is that he was silent

during the IP because 400 years elapsed between the ending of the OT and the beginning of the

NT. Even if this were the case, all things are uniquely and inextricably tied to God’s identity and

are managed by his constant governance and divine actions. Theologically, the Bible argues for

Leichty, Royal Inscriptions, 203, 236; The British Museum, “monument,” c. 670 BC, British Museum,

Iraq, 21.5 x 11.30 x 11 cm., basalt, (Image), https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1860-1201-1.

Ibid., 203, 220.

Yang, “Presence and Absence,” 187, 191.

Leichty, 1.

Ibid., 221, 230.

Ibid., 236.

Ibid.

138

ontological, cosmological, teleological, and moral acknowledgments of God’s existence, and the

portrayal of his sovereignty is linked to natural phenomena, scientific processes, and the hope of

righteousness in the world. These arguments are known as the “Classical Arguments” in

Christian philosophy and have roots in Judaism.

Analyzing biblical and “nonbiblical religions” can foster the fallacy of an existing

competition of truth between ancient texts and the Holy Scriptures. Comparing religions (tenets,

practices, and religious figures) in a multidisciplinary environment can assist with documenting

historical and cultural implications to better understand God’s identity and the cogency of his

message for humanity.

Paul Bassett and William Greathouse advise,

We treasure doctrinal statements and formulations from the past and use them to guide us toward the

future. … The basic fixed point is Scripture, which is the basic witness to those utterly indispensable

events upon which faith is predicated. … Scripture helps us to overcome history with history.

When faulty comparisons compromise Scripture as the direct revelation of God, God’s origin

and identity are manipulated, and his actions are misconstrued. His constancy is still evident

despite mankind’s denial and can only be recognized through submission to his ruling authority.

The Application of Theocracy

Applying theocracy in the book of Job is vital to a Jewish understanding of God’s role in

their world and other associated themes that define his sovereignty. Samuel Brody perceives

Josephus’ use of theocracy, originating from the Greek word θεοκρατία (theocratiα; meaning

The Classical Arguments distinguish and differentiate theological approaches, and this bolsters proof of

God’s existence; C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith, 2nd ed.,

CCP, ed. C. Stephen Evans (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 57; See H. Orton Wiley and Paul T.

Culbertson, Introduction to Christian Theology (1946, repr., Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City,

1969), 78-83.

A shortlist of disciplines for the study of God and his physical, moral, and spiritual interactions with

Creation are religion, philosophy, theology, biology, geology, meteorology, astrology, archaeology, anthropology,

sociology, philology, linguistics, metaphysics, and even quantum theory. Most studies can be related to God as a

constant factor since he is the fixed point of origination for all things.

Paul M. Bassett and William M. Greathouse, “The Significance of Historical Study,” in The Historical

Development, vol. 2, ECH (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1985), 21.

139

“rule of God”), to identify Israel.

The chosen and elected people of God, by whatever historic

term used (i.e., Hebrews, Israelites, and Jews), were invited to enter a longstanding, nationalistic

covenant with him. Their participation in this covenant distinguishes them from the “traditional

… types of politeia [polity] that were passed down from Greek political thought.”

This ideal

was not a foreign concept to the early Jews, though the term came to the forefront much later

than the time of Job. God’s theocratic influence does not function independently of his just and

righteous nature, which is in perfect balance in heaven and mandates acceptable behaviors for

Jews and God-fearers on earth (Ps 106:3; Jer 9:24; Micah 6:8). Accepting his theocratic position

requires an acknowledgment of the effectual questioning of theodicy and retribution, in

alignment with applying them to Job’s situation of suffering.

Sovereignty Above and Below

Multiple scriptures testify to the sovereignty of God over all things. Genesis begins with

a statement that sets the tone for theocratic origination, claiming, “In the beginning God created

the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). Amos 9:6 distinguishes the Lord as the one who “builds

His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His vaulted dome over the earth.” King

David acknowledges the immenseness of his theocracy through praise,

Yours, Lord, is the greatness, the power, the glory, the victory, and the majesty, indeed everything that

is in the heavens and on the earth; Yours is the dominion, Lord, and You exalt Yourself as head over

all (1 Chron 29:11).

The Jewish scholar Martin Buber (1878–1965) theorizes similarly, “The basic doctrine which

fills the Hebrew Bible is that our life is a dialogue between the above and below;”

Samuel Hayim Brody, “Theocracy as Monarchy and Anarchy,” in Is Judaism Democratic? Reflections

from Theory and Practice Throughout the Ages, ed. Leonard J. Greenspoon (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University

Press, 2018), 91; James Montgomery notes that he also referred to Israel as a “monarchy, an aristocracy, and a

democracy,” however, theocracy was a better fit, for “God was their “invisible governor;” James A. Montgomery,

“The Religion of Flavius Josephus,” JQR 11, no. 3 (January, 1921): 295-6.

Brody, “Theocracy,” 91; See also Zgambo and Nicolaides, “A Brief Exposition,” 2-3.

140

between the God of the heavens and the people of the earth.

God transcends time and space; these ultimately limit man without God’s intervention.

He is the cause of creation and demonstrated his unlimited abilities by forming all that exists,

even though man does not fully reveal or understand the details of his actions. Buber explains

that God’s “unconditional exclusiveness and unconditional inclusiveness are one.”

He has

demonstrated his inclusiveness by communicating his sovereignty to all people without words

(Ps 19:3). An interpretive sound (Ps 19:4), “day to day pours forth speech” (Ps 19:2), and “has

gone out into all the earth” (Ps 19:4). The existence of a greater power is confirmed through

acknowledgment absent of understanding. Mankind can understand that something far greater

exists without a personal relationship with God because he has not hidden himself or his

authority. Beyond this and better than most, Israel should comprehend God’s universal

communication that he is their leader.

Enduring Theocracy

The irrefutable relationship between God and humanity exists throughout the generations

as an enduring theocracy. Yahweh was the “leader of all the migrations of the peoples, even the

wanderings of peoples hostile to Israel from earliest times.”

God directs the movements of all

nations (Amos 9:7, 12), especially as it concerns the universal judgment of man and the

prophesied restoration of his people (Amos 9:9, 14-15). His theocratic involvement does not

negate man’s ability to choose a relationship with him. The inner recognition of the enduring

existence of an ultimate divine being, absent of a conscious recognition of God or his theocratic

Martin Buber, At the Turning: Three Addresses on Judaism (New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Young,

1952), 48.

Martin Buber, I and Thou, trans. Ronald Gregor Smith (1937, repr., London, England: Morrison and

Gibb Limited, 1950), 78.

Martin Buber, Kingship of God, 3rd ed., trans. Richard Scheimann (New York, NY: Harper & Row

Publishers, 1965), 50.

141

position, led nations to “know virtually only caricatures and false names.”

Buber claims that

Israel was the exception; however, God-fearers were among the descendants of Noah, and the

Joban text supports this. God-fearers were those outside the Jews who acknowledged a

relationship with the above and accepted the Almighty’s rule below.

An inescapable dialogue moves between God’s mind and man’s heart; it exists in

perpetuity; all man can do is deny its existence. Will Herberg comments about his study of

Buber’s works, “God’s ‘presentness’ in … meeting with man does not overcome his ‘absolute

distance,’ nor does it mitigate his ‘absolute demand’” for acceptance of his “total sovereignty

over all areas of life.”

Theocracy permeates creation and forces a declaration of faith. It

becomes visible through the historical presentation of the recorded Word in the Jewish scriptures

and, later, the revealed embodiment of the Word through Jesus Christ in the NT (John 1:1-4).

Even so, God’s rule is not bound by history; his rule is immutable and transcendent, instituting

an ongoing theological conversation about his just nature through the power of biblical

revelation.

Sovereign Rule through Divine Justice

The enduring sovereign rule of God is characterized by his many attributes, one of which

is    (ṣǝḏāqâ, meaning “justice”).

Unlike the ANE gods, his sense of justice is perfectly

balanced with his other attributes, and his actions toward mankind are not self-serving or

inconsequential. Quite the opposite, justice is deployed below in service to the Jews and the rest

of humanity because they are of great consequence to God. As a moral attribute, justice may be

Buber, Kingship of God, 50.

Will Herberg, ed., The Writings of Martin Buber (1956, repr., Cleveland, OH: The World Publishing

Company, 1965), 26.

GCHLOT, s.v. “   ,” 702-3.

142

referenced together with his righteousness in the Scriptures (Pss 19:9; 89:14; Zeph 3:5). Psalm 9

declares that God “sits as King forever” (9:7) and that he has “sat on the throne judging

righteously (9:4b). Psalms 9–11 praise him for these traits (9:1-2; 10:16a; 11:7), recognize

situations where he has or will act upon them (9:3-6; 10:1-11, 17b-18; 11:2-3a, 5-6), and appeal

to him to act through imprecation (9:13; 10:2b, 12, 15). Jerome Skinner points out that “by

seeking justice, the people of God must learn to be just. … The ethical is not just an ideal, but a

lived and shared experience of image bearing through the … guided teachings of the Torah.”

Man must avoid focusing too much on what is right and just, as a matter of the human

intellectual process or surrounding religious belief systems, to avoid being distracted from

matters of the heart. The Jews’ view of justice and righteousness became skewed when

“operating out of … false system[s] of belief which may not only be false, but also

syncretistic.”

Both the “righteous and the wicked are tested by God” (Ps 11:5a). Some could

fully accept that God is just and righteous, and his judgment could be trusted in the sense of his

wisdom.

Justice Combined with Wisdom and Obedience

God consistently balances justice with judgment without relaxing righteousness’ moral

and spiritual standards. Kabbalah tradition claims that the Torah was wisdom that God imparted

to Adam and is associated with the Tree of Life (“the sefirah Tiferet”) and the Tree of the

Knowledge of Good and Evil (“Shekhinah”).

Genesis 3:18 imparts, “She [the Torah] is a tree of

Jerome Skinner, “Judgment for the Saints: The Justice of God in Psalms 3–14,” Papers 10 (2017): 125.

Ibid., 116.

Paul Morris, “Exiled from Eden: Jewish Interpretations of Genesis,” in A Walk in the Garden: Biblical,

Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden, JSOTSup 136, ed. Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer (Sheffield,

England: JSOT Press, 1992), 134.

143

life to those who take hold of her, and happy are those who hold on to her.”

This verse is part of

a ten-verse passage describing the benefits of wisdom.

Adam and Eve ate of the Shekhinah; the just and proper action was spiritual death

because they learned the difference between good and evil. They did not have the wisdom from

the Tiferet, also known as the heavenly Torah. “The breach in the harmonious union of the two

Edenic Trees has resulted in evil” and “transforms the Tree of Life into the Tree of Death,

becoming activated as the evil inclination,” reflects Paul Morris.

As mentioned in Chapter

Three, the evil inclination is the root that takes hold and leads to sin.

Evidence for godly mandates of repentance, faithfulness, and obedience stretches back to

Adam and continues until Noah. The ejection of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden

instituted a continual cycle of humans choosing between obedience and disobedience. They

rejected godly wisdom for human ignorance. Henceforth, their descendants, whether Jews or

Gentiles, were left to choose between the God of no origin and the gods of their own making.

The patriarchal setting of Job represents the justice of God based on ancient traditions

that exude from the metanarrative of the Bible and other ancient texts. By accepting the premise

that Job preexisted Moses and all that transpired in Deuteronomic history, one is not excluding

God's just and moral expectations that existed long before this, coexisting with forms of

sacrificial living. Humanity has been governed justly through “prayers, rituals, and

understandings of how the world should indeed work when it is fully under God’s reign.”

Paul Morris, “Exiled from Eden,” 117.

Ibid., 135.

Joel S. Kaminsky, “Would You Impugn My Justice? A Nuanced Approach to the Hebrew Bible’s

Theology of Divine Recompense,” Int 69, no. 3 (2015): 310.

144

The Emergence of Distributive Justice

Over time, man perceived that the enduring justice of God’s rule was distributive. The

lawlessness of man, in conjunction with the influence of the fallen sons of God, prompted God to

exercise judgment in the form of the worldwide flood (Gen 6–8). Following this, God made a

covenant with Noah and the repopulation of the earth began (Gen 10). Then mankind decided to

decrease the distance between heaven and earth, between God and man (Gen 11), by building the

Tower of Babel.

God exercises his judgment again by confusing their language and dispersing

them “over the face of all the earth” (Gen 11:9). Nine generations later, God entered a covenant

with Abram and his descendants, ushering in the time of the Patriarchs and the formation and

eventual naming of Israel (Gen 32:27-28; 35:10).

In Genesis 26:1-6, God extends the Abrahamic covenant to Isaac and reminds him that

“Abraham obeyed Me and fulfilled his duty to Me, and kept my commandments, My statutes,

and My laws” (26:5). The Sinaitic Torah had yet to be given to the Israelites. Still, the Patriarchs

lived under moral expectations. The equality of justice became more critical than divine

forgiveness. Distributive and retributive justice were brought to the forefront, meaning equal

rewards or punishments align with equal merit or demerit.

The emergence of arguments for the

culpability of God and Job in the earthly setting of the book (Job 3–37) links God’s identity to

the practical and theological discussion of his sovereignty through the exploration of theodicy

and divine retribution.

Marduk’s ziggurat in the Esagila complex may have been the inspiration for the design of the Tower of

Babel. Herodotus (484-425 BC) provides a description of Babylon and the Tower of Babel; Herodotus, The History

of Herodotus, vol. 1, trans. G. C. Macaulay, December 1, 2008, I, 1.180-1, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/

2707-h/2707-h.htm#link22H_4_0001.

Aquinas, ST I, q. 65, a. 2.

145

The Applications of Theodicy and Divine Retribution

The relationship between theodicy and divine retribution begins to reveal itself as the

characters venture into their treatment of the divine-human relationship. In Chapter Two,

theodicy was defined as the vindication of God’s divine goodness and justice juxtaposed against

the evil in the world and the suffering of humanity. The theological significance of the

retribution principle is joined to the question of God’s existence. These theological topics in Job

are easily relatable to other biblical books, especially other wisdom (Psalms, Proverbs,

Ecclesiastes) and prophetic books (Habakkuk, Jeremiah, Malachi).

Some scholars claim that the purpose of the book of Job is a treatise on both topics and

almost entirely theodical (Zgambo and Nicolaides, Lawson, Walter Brueggemann), while others

see theodicy as an equal or lesser theme that links back to retributive and distributive justice and

other theological themes and happenings, such as theocracy and theophany (Zgambo and

Nicolaides, Wogman).

Theodical arguments and retribution are definitively linked to the

exploration of the divine-human relationship, and as a result, a myriad of scholarly explanations

and arguments have produced many theodicies.

Theodicy

Attempting to reconcile suffering and evil with philosophy and religion is an ancient

pastime, but the formulation and use of the word “theodicy” emerged in the early eighteenth

century. The origin of the word is Greek, combining the terms θεός (theós, meaning God) and

Antii Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, eds., Theodicy in the World of the Bible: The Goodness of God

and the Problem of Evil (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2003).

Zgambo, Nicolaides, and Brueggemann relay that the book is based upon contemplating theodicy in the

life of Job and in human history, social or otherwise. Lawson does not use the word theodicy very often in his

commentary. However, the exploration of suffering is touched upon in every chapter of his literary and theological

dissection of the text; Zgambo and Nicolaides, “A Brief Exposition,” 2; Lawson, Job, 21; Walter Brueggemann,

“Theodicy in a Social Dimension,” JSOT 10, no. 33 (1985): 4, 10, 22; Wogman, “Author of Job,” 34.

146

δίκη (dikē, meaning justice).

The French eponym, théodicée, was first used by Gottfried

Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716; also known as Leibnitz) in his 1710 publication.

Leibnez

“coined the term” based upon Romans 3:4-5 and in a “monotheistic Christian context,” state

Antii Laato and Johannes de Moor.

The development, acceptance, and rejection of theodicies

fostered the rise and fall of theodical suppositions across the centuries on the existence of God,

his attributes, and the theological concepts of freedom and justification.

Theodicies are not limited to monotheistic discussions and applications. Over the

centuries, it has become a multidisciplinary exercise in religion, philosophy, and sociology.

Neusner points out that sociology, for example, may be applied to theological discussions but

may need to explain theological concepts more effectively.

The general study of suffering and

the source of evil in Job’s life reveals intrinsic ties between all three disciplines. Consequently,

this does not preclude the existence and prevalence of theodicies in the Bible and their ongoing

effect on Jewish and Christian theology and scholarship.

Contemplating Jewish Theodicies

In contemplating the Jewishness of theodicy, one must recognize that Jewish texts do not

offer a single solution for the origin of evil and the prevalence of suffering. David Shatz

explains, “Ancient sources that classically were, and still are vital in assessing Jewish

authenticity − Bible, Talmud, and Midrash − generate a pool of approaches to evil that were

Brueggemann, “Social Dimension,” 4.

Leibniz was German born, with a partially formal and informal education. He dedicated himself in

service to nobility, authored various works in German, French, and Latin, and made significant contributions to the

fields of physics, mathematics, philosophy/religion, politics, history, and linguistics; Paul Rateau, Leibniz on the

Problem of Evil (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019), 1; Burrell and Johns, Deconstructing Theodicy, 8.

Laato and de Moor, Theodicy in the World, x.

Ibid.; See Jacob Neusner, “Theodicy in Judaism,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible: The Goodness of

God and the Problem of Evil, ed. Antii Laato and Johannes C. de Moor (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill

NV, 2003), 685, 694.

Neusner, “Theodicy in Judaism,” 694.

147

elaborated and treated more rigorously in subsequent times.”

Key elements in Jewish tradition

that contribute to the formation of theodicies are retribution, the need for repentance and

atonement, trials and tribulations, natural and moral law, and human influence.

The Bible

declares God’s sovereignty, acknowledges him as the παντοκράτωρ (pantokratōr, meaning “he

who holds sway over all, he is ruler of all; the Almighty”) and allows for the frailty of the human

spiritual condition.

For some, like J. L. Mackie (1917–1981), the classical tenets of theism

(God’s omnipotence and goodness) are contradicted by the existence of evil.

Is it possible that

the other attributes of God in the OT, some of which are transitive, provide balance to all that he

is in the face of what he is not (1 John 1:5)? He is not evil; any assigned culpability for suffering

would be related to his actions, at best, and not his person.

The reflected relationship between the Almighty and evil in the HB evolved as the

“rabbis of the Talmud and Midrash” began to focus less on the “theological aspects of theodicy”

and more on the sociological effects. In other words, “how” does “an individual respond[s] to the

yissurin that comes upon him.”

Yissurin is the Hebrew word for various forms of evil and bad

circumstances that could befall an individual, like suffering, punishment, illness, and other forms

David Shatz, “Constructing a Jewish Theodicy,” in The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil, ed.

Justin P. McBrayer and Daniel Howard-Snyder (West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2013),

312.

Ibid., 312-5.

Mounce and Mounce, Interlinear New Testament, 1131.

Mackie was an Australian philosopher and atheist, and so he did not accept what the Tanakh had to offer

by way of describing God’s omnipotence (Job 42:2; Ps 147:5; Prov 15:3; Isa 44:24; Jer 23:24; 32:17, 27) or his

goodness (Exod 33:19; Pss 34:8; 107:1; 145:9; Jer 29:11); J. L. Mackie, “Evil and Omnipotence,” Mind 64, no. 254

(April, 1955): 200, 203-6.

Matthew B. Schwartz, “The Meaning of Suffering: A Talmudic Response to Theodicy,” Judaism 32, no.

4 (Fall, 1983): 444.

148

of hardship. Instances of yissurin in the Talmud are described as possibly authentic or anecdotal

stories and parables.

Rabbis similarly expound on scriptures through midrash.

Job’s reactions to the presentations of evil, death, illness, pain, poverty, and abandonment

cause him to be questioned and judged over how he responds to these misfortunes. His situation

differs from later midrashic formulations of theodicies because the Joban text explores

interrelated theological aspects. All the earthly characters consider God as the instigator of the

tragedies. Some thought Job brought them upon himself due to unrepentant sin (his three friends)

and that his perceived reactions could affect his integrity (Elihu). The Bible highlights many

situations for later Jewish and Christian scholars to review and develop their own theodicies.

Rabbinic Judaism shifted to human culpability to rationalize a powerful and good God by

preventing him from being the author and instigator of evil. He is the God of “justice and equity.

The categorical structure of the Oral Torah encompasses the[se] components, God and man; the

Torah; Israel and the nations.”

100

A couple of Talmudic examples of real or anecdotal stories are, as follows. Naḥum of Gam Zu suffered

because he did not help a poor person before he died in order to fully unload his donkey (b. Ta’an. 21a:8-11) R.

Elazar ben Shimon accepted nightly pains and the oozing of blood and pus from his body because he thought he had

committed a wrong against some other righteous men. He eventually was healed, but his wife left him for a time,

staying with her father, and later returned (b. B. Metz. 84b:1-6); William Davidson Foundation, “Taanit,” William

Davidson ed., Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Taanit?tab=contents; William Davidson Foundation, “Bava Metzia,”

William Davidson ed., Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia?tab=contents.

Psalm 11:5 declares, “The Lord tries the righteous, but His soul hates the wicked and the one who loves

violence” (CJB). In Bereishit Rab. 32:3-4, the rabbis share three parables to elucidate this scripture. R. Yonatan ben

Uziel illustrates, “A potter tests … sturdy jugs,” not the “flimsy” ones; therefore, God tests the righteous, like he did

Abraham (Gen 22:1). R. Yosei ben Ḥanina explains that a “linen producer … knows that …the more he crushes”

and “beats” his “high quality” flax, the “more it improves;” therefore, he will only test the wicked. R. Shimon says

that when a farmer has a “strong” and a “feeble” cow, he puts the “yoke … upon the strong one.” He relates this to

the testing of Noah (Gen 7:4); Sefaria, “Bereishit Rabbah,” https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah?tab=contents.

100

Neusner, “Theodicy in Judaism,” 686.

149

Contemplating Christian Theodicies

Christian theologians and scholars have attempted to proffer singular solutions for evil

and have yet to be more successful than their Jewish counterparts. When Leibnez responded to

this challenge, he did not “exaggerate its extent” but believed “evil is undeniable,” stating:

[O]ne cannot deny that there is in the world physical evil (that is, suffering) and moral evil (that is,

crime) and even that physical evil is not always distributed here on earth according to the proportion

of moral evil, as it seems that justice demands.

101

Irenaeus of Lyon (AD 130–202) believed that God created man in his image, allowing natural

evil (e.g., “earthquakes and tsunamis”) to “threaten human lives … to build their characters.”

102

The existence of moral evil (i.e., lying, stealing, rape, and murder) results from humans

exercising free will. Furthermore, he proposes that God has the authority and power to stop the

suffering caused by evil, but he does not intervene for the spiritual good of humans. Augustine

determined that evil is a “privation or lack of good,” and God is not responsible for evil since it

originates from humanity’s free will, but the Fall affected this.

103

Aquinas and Calvin were

influenced by Augustine’s theodicy, however, they believe man willingly chooses to sin and yet

purport that man is indeed “enslaved to sin.”

104

This juxtaposition is left unresolved by either

theologian. Nicolas Berdiaeff (1874–1948) claims they later rejected human freedom as the

cause of evil.

105

101

The translation that Rateau uses does not provide the citation for Leibnez’s work; however, the 1734

publication of the book is open source; Rateau, Leibniz, 1; Leibnez relays, “Car on ne ſauroit nier, qu’il y a dans le

monde du mal physſique, (c’eſt-à-dire des ſouffrances) & du mal moral, (c’eſt-à-dire des crimes) & même que le mal

physſique n’eſt pas toûjours diſtribué ici-bas ſuivant la proportion du mal moral, comme il ſemble que la juſtice le

demande;” M. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz, “Discours sur la confirmité de la Foi avec la Raison,” in Essais de

Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l’homme, et l’origine du mal, Nouvelle éd. (Amsterdam, The

Netherlands: Chéz François Changuon, 1734), T1.IV, §43.

102

René van Woudenberg, “A Brief History of Theodicy,” in The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of

Evil, ed. Justin P. McBrayer and Daniel Howard-Snyder (West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2013),

178.

103

Ibid., 179.

104

Ibid., 179-81.

105

Berdiaeff is also known as Nikolai Berdyaev; Nicolas Berdiaeff, Esprit et liberté: Essai de Philosophie

Chrétienne, Écrivains religieux étrangers (Paris, France: Société Commerciale d’Édition et de Lebrairie 1933), 147.

150

Some Christian theodicies allow God to be all-powerful and all-knowing, but others

restrict his knowledge and his ability to act, preferring to focus on human beings instead. Henri

Blocher describes the decision to allow human choice as a “risk” taken by God, which must be

no more than a euphemism since God does not endanger his existence by doing so.

106

Understanding evil in the temporal world is to say that it exists as a possibility of choice for men.

Evil is not “determined in advance by God … but it needs to be questioned more closely on the

nature of divine sovereignty” being rooted in the Father alone.

107

Berdiaeff, Wilfred Monod (1867–1943), André Gounelle, David Griffin (1939–2022),

and indeed, Alfred Whitehead (1861–1947; the father of Process Theology) all limit the power of

God, thereby claiming that he is neither wholly sovereign nor omnipotent.

108

Berdiaeff

completely rejects the idea that God the Father instituted freedom through his creative acts.

109

Monad was a proponent of Social Christianity and saw God as a means “to transform reality”

because he is not fully engaged in the world, and nature is managed by a “demiurge.”

110

The

natural world is often integral to these discussions; however, nature only controls what has been

ordained. Gounelle states, “Dieu a besoin du monde pour se réaliser,” which means that God

needs the world to fulfill himself.

111

He is dependent upon man for creation to be a success.

Griffin did not believe that God has any absolute control over evil due to freedom and it is

106

Henri Blocher, “Christian Thought and the Problem of Evil: Part II,” Churchmen 99 (1985): 102.

107

Ibid.

108

Ibid., 103-4.

109

Berdiaeff states, “La source de la liberté de l’homme reside en Dieu, non en Dieu la Père, mais en Dieu

le Fils” (The source of man’s freedom lies in God, not in the God the Father, but in God the Son). He sees freedom

being linked to Jesus Christ as he is the God-man. Furthermore, he believes that if humans are in the image of God,

then this affirms that God’s power is arbitrary and used for evil. He states, “L’organisation de la vie Terrestre à

l’image de cette monarchie celeste est l’affirmation du pouvoir arbitraire et du despotisme;” Berdiaeff, Esprit et

liberté, 147, 154, 181-2, 206; Blocher, “Christian Thought,” 103.

110

Wilfred Monad, Le probléme du bien: essai de théodicée et journal d’un pasteur,” vol. 1-3 (Paris,

France: Chéz F. Alcan, 1935), 62-65.

111

André Gounelle, “Dieu selon la Process Theology,” Études Théologiques et Religieuses 55, no. 2

(1980): 197.

151

“logically impossible for God unilaterally to prevent all evil.”

112

Whitehead painted a picture of a

caring God who wants to save the world, which is endearing; however, he believed that God is

not all-powerful, did not create the world, and is limited by imperfection.

113

Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000), another influence in Process Theology as it relates to

God’s participation in cosmic evolution, relays many objectionable ideas. Recognizing this, his

discussion on God’s management of cosmic order is interesting. He determines that God must

know the right amounts of freedom to give and power to be exerted within the cosmos. “Too

much freedom” with the “laws of nature (which, some of us believe, are divinely decided and

sustained), there could be only meaningless chaos; with too little, there could be only such good

as there may be in atoms and molecules by themselves, apart from all higher forms.”

114

Setting

aside human involvement presents a flaw in Hartshorne’s argument. Only an all-powerful and

sovereign authority could measure what degrees of freedom and power are too much or too little,

without discovery through trial and error. Any limits God employs in natural and moral law must

be consistent with his character and authority. How can one claim that God keeps natural order

in check but has no control over moral order?

Luther’s Theologia crucis (the theology of the cross) conveys a theodicy that centers

around the idea that God separates his work into two categories: the “opus alienum Dei,” the

“alien work” of God, and the “opus proprium Dei,” the “proper work” of God.

115

Veli-Matti

Karkkainen notes that these are thought of as “opposite[s],” coming from God’s “left hand”

112

David R. Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press,

1976), 202.

113

Alfred N. Whitehead, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology, corrected ed., ed. David Ray

Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne (1929, repr., New York, NY: The Free Press, 1978), 343-51, 524-5.

114

Charles Hartshorne, Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes (Albany, NY: University of New

York Press, 1984), 18.

115

Veli-Matti Karkkainen, “‘Evil, Love and the Left Hand of God’: The Contribution of Luther’s Theology

of the Cross to an Evangelical Theology of Evil,” EQ 74, no. 3 (2002): 222.

152

(alien works) and his “right hand” (proper works).

116

Does his right hand not know what his left

hand is doing? “Luther in fact says that God’s proper work is veiled in his alien work and takes

place simultaneously with it,” characterizes Karkkainen, and “in doing so, God turns out to be

the devil.”

117

This paradox points right back to the Jewish acceptance of retribution.

Retribution

The origin of the word retribution is not a Hebraic or biblical term; it is a modern word

later adopted as a theological concept. The term first appears as a “Low Latin” word, retribuere,

“around 1120,” denoting “a reward, a giving back, but also to a deed” that produces a return “at

the same level as the giving, literally a »retaliation«.”

118

By 1220, the “Old French” word,

“rétribuement,” was a reward given after the deed and no longer was used in a verbal sense.

119

Retribution became an economic term related to “capitalism” by the fourteenth century and a

debated theological concept in Catholicism and Protestantism by the sixteenth century.

120

Hebrew, retribution is associated with םולש (shalôm, meaning “peace”) and םקנ (naqam, meaning

“revenge”), which are linked to the monotheistic concepts of reward and punishment and extend

to the doctrine of justification.

Yahweh is a divine entity whose complex nature allows for dispensing evil and good (Isa

45:7; 1 Chron 21:1; 1Q3:13–4:15); however, as previously discussed, he is not the originator of

116

Karkkainen, “Left Hand of God,” 222.

117

Ibid.

118

David Hamidović, “About the Blurred Concept of Retribution,” in »Retribution« in Jewish and

Christian Texts: A Concept in Debate, WUNT 2 Reihe 492, ed. David Hamidović, Apolline Thromas, and Matteo

Silvestrini (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 1; See Alain Rey, ed., Le Dictionnaire Historique de la

langue française, vol. 3 (Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert, 1998), 3226; The phrase Low Latin is defined as a type of

Latin that pertains to a post-classical dialect like “Vulgar” (ancient dialect of common speech in Rome) or

“Medieval” Latin; Paul M. Lloyd, “On the Definition of ‘Vulgar Latin’: The Eternal Return,” Neuphilologische

Mitteilungen 80, no. 2 (1979): 110-3.

119

Hamidović, “Blurred Concept,” 1.

120

In capitalism, the term was used for the remuneration of workers; Ibid.

153

evil.

121

Suffering is a byproduct of naqam (i.e., retribution and retaliation) and can be directed at

someone or be an unintended consequence. Shalôm can result from revenge and suffering

because of the work of justification. Alister McGrath, a Northern Irish Anglican priest and

theologian, explains how the alien works of God can be purposed, “God is active in this matter,

rather than passive, in that suffering and temptation are seen as means by which God breaks

down barriers of pride and ignorance, which inhibit people from discerning the divine presence

and purpose.”

122

He quotes Luther, stating, “Human reason cannot understand the ways of God,

and thus finds itself driven to despair” (WA 54.84.40).

123

McGrath adds, “Through the

experience of the opus alienum Dei, the sinner finds … confidence in himself totally shaken;

finding himself under the wrath of God, he counts himself damned. Yet through this experience

of the strange work of God … the sinner learns to trust only in God.”

124

Luther’s concept broadly

explains conviction, repentance, forgiveness, justification, salvation, and restoration. Job was

shaken, but he endeavored to rely on God rather than himself; it was only a matter of time before

God’s proper works were revealed.

Exploring the retribution principle within the theological framework of God’s

sovereignty exposes the underlying dogma and accusations underpinning the earthly characters’

arguments in Job.

125

The ideas of distributive and retributive justice are governed by the

121

Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison,” 393-4.

122

Alister E. McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough, 2nd ed.

(West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2011), 214.

123

Alister E. McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough (1985,

repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994), 152.

124

Ibid.

125

The literary and theological treatments of the earthly characters’ arguments are divided between

Chapters Six and Seven because the arguments for culpability and responsibility are unique for each character.

154

retribution principle and the common belief that God does not act arbitrarily.

126

God’s actions

toward humanity are based upon his will and his ways, which are legislated by his completely

righteous character. Seemingly arbitrary events that affect humans are frequently fed by human

decisions and interrelated consequences of decisions outside of natural occurrences considered to

be acts of God (i.e., hurricanes, earthquakes, and famine).

Retribution theology makes God’s actions appear to be prompted by man, and therefore,

justice and punishment are not arbitrary either. John Barton addresses the presence of “divine

arbitrariness” in the OT as it relates to evil and suffering and attempts to situationally and

theodically balance these realities.

127

Theodicies are not the answer; neither is a fundamental

recognition that God has “a dark side.”

128

The acceptance of God’s sovereignty, in conjunction

with the frailty and insufficiency of human wisdom, is generally made evident in the arguments

found in Job.

Contextual Synopsis

The arguments against God’s sovereignty are rooted in distraction and disbelief. Attempts

to insist that God must have an origin are made by classifying him as a lower divinity and

making him the son of or equal to a false god, like El. God has no origin; he is, and was, and will

always be in existence. Man’s inability to understand this concept does not change God’s

position; the only equality in divine power and authority is shared within his Triune nature. Any

126

E. J. Kuelen, “God-talk in the Book of Job: A Biblical, Theological, and Systematic Theological Study

into the Book of Job and its Relevance for the Issue of Theodicy” (Master’s thesis, University of Groningen,

Groningen, Netherlands, 2007): 42-3, 88, 124-5; Nicole Marie Hildebrand, “The Language of Creation and the

Construction of a New Concept of Theodicy: Job 38–42” (Master’s thesis, McGill University, 2006), 26.

127

John Barton, “The Dark Side of God in the Old Testament,” in Ethical and Unethical in the Old

Testament: God and Humans in Dialogue, LHBOTS 528, ed. Katharine J. Dell (New York, NY: T & T Clark

International, 2010), 122-3.

128

Ibid., 122.

155

connections to ANE gods distract from the truth and promote a satisfactory defense of his

preeminence and immutability.

Comparing ancient literature and textual artifacts set God apart from mythical deities and

divine functionaries. Other gods do not exist beyond the imagination of human beings, and

sustained recognition of these mythical entities is needed to avoid culpability for sin and explain

the unexplainable in the world. Any substantive correlations drawn between the ANE gods and

Yahweh in person, activity, and divine actions mimic him, except for origin. In ancient literary

descriptions, man is of little consequence, evidenced by the gods’ self-indulgence and

willingness to abandon their divine responsibilities for lowly mortals.

God is committed to the Jews through a historical and covenantal relationship extended

to humanity. The Bible is the most genuine reflection of his salvific plan and the value of his

ongoing relationship with humanity. The application of theocracy in the Joban story

demonstrates the continuity and consistency of his reign and his administration of justice. There

is a historical sense that God rules over the good and the bad by distributing justice with wisdom

through wisdom with the expectation that man will be obedient. Further, exploring God’s

sovereignty through the lens of the human characters in the Joban story will expand the

discussion on man’s culpability to that of God and Job. Without fail, God’s actions are, and man

must submit to his theocratic rule despite suffering.

156

CHAPTER SIX: ESTABLISHING THE CULPABILITY OF JOB

Depictions of the heavenly court and rapidly delivered judgments (1:4–2:7) transition to

and remain in an earthly setting dominated by human conversation until God’s appearance in Job

38. Job, his wife (2:9-10), friends (3–31), and an observer (32–37) actively dialogue about the

human application of theological concepts (i.e., theodicy, divine retribution, theocracy, and

sovereignty). Subsequently, all characters in the Dialogue search for silence, consolation, and a

sense of ethical rightness. The preservation of the sovereignty of God is represented by an

emergent pattern of establishing the culpability of Job through ongoing rebuke and offerings of

repentance as a remedy.

The dialogic arguments and associated views can be compared with questions

surrounding the characters, such as how they view the relationship between God and man and

how ancient Jewish traditions influence their reasoning and censure of Job. The wife’s comments

are brief in the MT, and the storyline is expanded in other extant works like the LXX, the T. Job,

and the Tg. Job. The friends focus on roles in the divine-human relationship, Job’s perceived

spiritual and ethical shortcomings, and the justification of God’s actions toward humans (the

wicked, the repentant, and the righteous). Elihu touches on previously debated topics and extends

them further, believes that Job was innocent of initial wrongdoing, and focuses on the dangers of

Job’s present attitude. Accusations abound, and explanations are given in error based on

positions of insinuated and palpable arrogance.

The arguments for establishing Job’s culpability and the theological implications of interchanges between

Job, his wife, and his four visitors are the focus of this chapter. As the Prologue ends, prose gives way to poetry,

with heavy dialogue between Job and the four visitors. Job’s two soliloquies (3; 31), his arguments for the

culpability of God, and his declaration of innocence will be addressed in Chapter Seven.

157

Transitioning to an Earthly Reality (2:8)

The heavenly gatherings that bring readers into the court of the Lord give way to the

fuller experience of Job’s reality on earth. The šāṭān’s theories about how Job would react to the

verdicts in 1:6–2:7 are unrealized. The intensity and pace of the previous verses slow down

dramatically to the earthly scene of Job sitting on a pile of ashes (2:8). Physically, he releases the

liquid from boils on his body by scraping his skin with a piece of pottery for temporary relief.

This image is uncomfortable and somewhat repulsive. Mentally and spiritually, there is no relief

afforded to him, no real consolation for the anguish he is enduring on the inside.

Job 2:8 signals that the narrative is transitioning from (a) the heavenly location to earth,

(b) divine beings to human beings, and (c) the formal setting of the court governed by the

presence of the Lord to an open-air setting that will be dominated by religious dogma and

accusations. The introduction of supporting characters secures the shift to human contemplation

and conversations about Job’s ordeal. Each character plays a literary role that reinforces God’s

testimony about Job’s spiritual fitness as an earthly extension of the šāṭān’s efforts, without any

indications of human intentionality.

Searching for Appropriate Responses

The earthly characters are searching for appropriate responses to Job’s dire

circumstances. Living under the strain of loss and illness holistically poses a danger to Job and

In several middle eastern languages (e.g., Hebrew, Chaldean, Syrian, and Arabic), equivalency suggests

that  (gāraḏ) is a verb associated with scraping, peeling, or stripping. In Hebrew form, it is only used in the

Hithpael tense, meaning “to scrape oneself … to allay itching,” according to H. W. F. Gesenius (1786–1842). The

Talmud suggests a more intense scraping, stating “he scraped it … and reduced it to its normal size,” using a dalet in

the spelling   ; b. Roš Haš 27b:3) in one reference instead of the double resh found in another Talmudic

reference, which also correlates to “dragging” an item (b. Šabb. 29b:3). Rashi also describes two kinds of scraping;

BDB,  , 173; GHCLOT, s.v. “  ,” 178; The William Davidson Foundation, “Rosh Hashanah,” William Davidson

ed., Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_Hashanah? tab=contents; The William Davidson Foundation, “Shabbat,”

William Davidson ed., Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Shabbat?tab=contents; Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 2:8.

158

his wife’s relationship with God and impacts their responses during the traditional grieving

process. When the visitors arrive, they may have already experienced the Aninut (the period after

death until the burial). R. Joseph Soloveitchik (1903–1993) describes this emotional period as

representing “the spontaneous human reaction to death. Man responds to his defeat at the hands

of death with total resignation and with an all-consuming masochistic self-devastating black

despair.”

The Jewish sages recognized that “there is no one to carry” a mourner’s “burden;” Job

and his wife are not functioning normally. Other mourners have begun to arrive at their home to

pay their respects.

Job is silent, sullen, and sickly; he is a pitiful man who wishes he had never been born

(3:1). What does one say to someone who has almost lost everything and appears to be on the

brink of death? Clement explains,

When we come to the end…, the wealth, consisting of the things which we possessed, journeys no

farther with us. For not a single thing that we possess is properly our own. We are properly owners of

only one possession, that is, godliness. Death will not rob us of this.

Job and the other earthly characters initially react by relying on their faith and observing early

forms of Talmudic halakhot. Attempting to cope with the aftermath of the disasters causes them

to search for silence, consolation, and a sense of ethical rightness.

In Search of Silence

Job’s silence in the Prologue is met with God’s silence in the Dialogue as the story moves

toward exploring the moral and ethical dilemmas brought to bear by intense suffering. Job’s

Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Eulogy for Tolner Rebbe, ed. Abraham R. Besdin, Rabbinical Council of

America, June, 1972, 2-3, qtd. in Ruben Schindler, “The Halakhic Framework of Mourning and Bereavement: Its

Implications in Dealing with Crisis,” JOJT 15, no. 3 (Fall, 1975): 70.

Ibid.

Clement of Alexandria, Catena fragment 1, qtd. in Manlio Simonetti and Marco Conti, eds., Job, Old

Testament VI, ACCS (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 82.

159

initial silence at the end of chapter two is rooted in cultural and religious customs and initially

conveys stoic acceptance.

Beyond his original reaction, one should consider that the descriptions

of the “halakhot of mourning” in the Mishnah’s Mo’ed Katan informs on earlier traditions. The

halakhot were not “explicit commandments or obligations” from God but were “delegated to”

the “Sages” and part of “oral tradition,” comments Aiden Steinsaltz in his introduction of the

tractate.

Ribaz explains that “the consolers are not permitted to speak words of consolation

until the mourner opens and speaks first.”

Maimonides also reinforces the critical roles of

comforters and the observance of silence.

Job’s situation seems unique: he is in mourning and very ill. When someone is sick with

a disease, the halakhot of mourning combines with the “halakhot of ostracism and

excommunication,” defined as “a form of banishment that requires one to act as though in

mourning.”

The sickly person would be figuratively silenced by participating in a perpetual

state of mourning their past, present, and future. The person would endure the full force of Maas’

description of biblical leprosy due to their ostracization from the community and the implications

of sins that resulted in illness in the form of retribution.

These and other early forms of halakhic

traditions govern the earthly characters’ behavior in this story.

Several halakhot of mourning are relative to Job’s story, such as the previously mentioned Keriya, the

rending of garments (1:20; 2:12) and the Shiva, the first seven days of mourning. Job’s visitors sat down on the

ground, as described by Maimonides; Moshe ben Maimonides, “Shefar Shoftim, trans. Eliyahu Touger, Avel 13:3,

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1181894/jewish/Avel-Chapter-13.htm#lt=both.

Sefaria, “Introductions to the Babylonian Talmud, Moed Katan, Introduction to Moed Katan,” William

Davidson ed., trans. Aiden Steinsaltz, 2014, 2, https://www.sefaria.org/Introductions_to_the_Babylonian_

Talmud?tab=contents.

m. Mo'ed Qaṭ. 28b:23; Sefaria, “Moed Katan,” https://www.sefaria.org/Moed_Katan?tab=contents.

Maimonides, b. Avel 13:2-3; See also Sefaria, “Mishneh Torah, Mourning,” 13:2-3,

https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah_Mourning?tab=contents.

Sefaria, “Introduction to Moed Katan,” 8-9, 14.

Maas, “A Literary Diagnosis,” 219.

160

Beyond this, one can follow Job’s conditional and dispositional movements to see how

his situation evolves. Physically and mentally, illness and grief take a toll on his body and mind.

Even though silence and withdrawal naturally accompany traumatic experiences, Job and his

wife are in a state of shock.

God does not want them to ignore their pain, reciting religious

sayings or Scripture to avoid it and other consequential realities. Avoidance will lead to

unresolved anger and disappointment in God and each other. Eventually, this may cultivate

bitterness, and unresolved bitterness inspires spiritual decline.

The function of silence in the text is more than a literary exercise; Job’s need to be heard

was initiated by his suffering and perpetuated by God’s silence. His emotional expressions,

moral and ethical arguments, and demands for divine presence and consolation take him from

silence to verbosity.

J. David Pleins recognizes that silence has therapeutic effects, stating, “Job

is able to express his grief freely once he has encountered the reality of God’s ominous silent

presence.”

Job’s speeches indicate that he is a strong believer and attempting to hold firm to his

beliefs. He soon realizes there is more to his faith than doctrine and examines the divine-human

relationship. His search for silence shifts from an internal expression to an externally reflected

desire as he is bombarded by the verbal noise of those sitting on the ground beside him.

The visitors’ search for silence is demonstrated by: (a) Eliphaz the Temanite, who wants

Job to be quiet and listen to his wealth of experiences and observations (4:8; 5:27) in concert

with the revelation of a supposed divine encounter (4:12-16); (b) Bildad the Shuhite, who

interprets Job’s words as a “mighty wind” (8:2), explaining God’s silence by portraying him as

Vogels states that Job “is in shock,” but it stands to reason his wife experienced this, too; Walter Vogels,

“The Spiritual Growth of Job: A Psychological Approach to the Book of Job,” BTB 11, no. 3 (1981): 78.

Zuckerman identifies Job as “the Silent” who becomes “the Verbose;” Bruce Zuckerman, Job the Silent:

A Study in Historical Counterpoint (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991), 97.

J. David Pleins, “‘Why Do You Hide Your Face?’: Divine Silence and Speech in the Book of Job,” Int

48, no. 3 (1994): 229.

161

being asleep (8:6); and (c) Zophar the Naamathite, who thinks Job’s “multitude of words” and

“boasts” are of no use because others can see the truth and will not remain silent (11:1-4).

Elihu

the Buzite could no longer remain silent after listening to the four men (32:17-18). He points out

that God speaks and acts when he brings relief and comes to the “rescue” (34; 36:15). When God

does not act and “keeps quiet,” Elihu asks, “Who can condemn? And when He hides his face,

who then can look at Him?” (34:29).

In Search of Consolation

The search for consolation is mutual for all the human characters. Job and his wife have

sustained devastating losses and are under great strain. Job’s friends must have felt helpless at

first, wondering what they could say or do for Job in his hour of need. When Job breaks his

silence, he agonizingly expresses his most profound and darkest feelings (3:1-26). Anger and

despair pour out of him, and he says things that are shocking and out of character. His friends do

not respond favorably, are caught up in their personalities, and do not know how to console him.

Consolation must be meted out carefully and in degrees of intensity. The failure to

understand the act of consoling through misplaced words and poorly planned actions can deepen

the confusion and despair of a grieving person and increase dissatisfaction and anger. Åsa

Roxberg et al. define consolation “as a state of well-being” received from “a consoling interval

in or from the suffering.”

Several common mistakes are made when people attempt to help

others feel better about a situation. John Cheydleur shares that these include: (1) using

“patronizing or cliché responses;” (2) engaging in “inappropriate self-disclosure;” (3) giving

See Stefan Fischer, “Silence and Silencing in the Book of Job,” Usuteaduslik Ajakiri 1, no. 77 (2020):

82-3.

Åsa Roxberg et al., “Where Can I Find Consolation? A Theoretical Analysis of the Meaning of

Consolation as Experienced by Job in the Book of Job in the Hebrew Bible,” JRH 52, no. 1 (2013): 115; See also

Paul Maxwell and John Perrine, “The Problem of God in the Presence of Grief: Exchanging ‘Stages’ of Healing for

‘Trajectories’ of Recovery,” JSFSC 9 (2016): 176-193.

162

“advice instead of information;” (4) “overlooking” the “values” of the sufferer; and (5) the

misuse of religious symbols and jargon.

Mistakes such as these will be made evident as the

speeches unfold.

When moving through the dispositions of grief, it is only natural to begin searching for

relief from the intensity of one’s thoughts and feelings. Depending on the severity of the

circumstances and the level of trauma, grief affects all aspects of a person’s well-being.

Throughout the speeches, Job experiences “normal grief” that “incorporates … emotional

(affective), behavioural, physical (somatic or physiological) and cognitive manifestations.”

Additionally, the visitors cannot separate these reactions from the doctrines that inform their

ethical positions.

In Search of Ethical Rightness

Job vehemently declares his rightness and God’s authoritative justice over his life, and

yet, at other times, he conveys that God’s only recourse is to find him guilty. In response to

Bildad’s first speech, he supposes, “Though I am righteous, my mouth will condemn me; though

I am guiltless, He will declare me guilty. I am guiltless” (9:20-21a). Later in the chapter, he

addresses God, saying, “I know that You will not acquit me. I am guilty” (9:28-29a). Only two

chapters before, when responding to Eliphaz’s initial speech (4–5), he asks God, “Have I sinned?

What have I done to You, Watcher of mankind?” (7:20). These scripture references illustrate the

emotional, sociological, and moral turmoil Job is in; they do not relay any concrete belief that he

is the cause of his suffering. He grieves while continually moving through a cyclical process of

John R. Cheydleur, Called to Council: Counseling Skills Handbook (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House

Publishers, 1999), 3-13.

Margaret Stroebe and Henk Schut, “Culture and Grief,” Bereavement Care 17, no. 1 (Spring, 1998): 8.

163

introspection and reasoning in search of ethical rightness. Like the visitors, his search relies upon

earthly wisdom, religious dogma, and personal life experience. Eventually, he confirms he is not

culpable, even though the visitors lay sin and guilt squarely at his door. Their ethical

determinations do not align with his conclusions at all. Job will ultimately reject silence, any

form of human consolation, and the human understanding of ethical rightness.

Relational Culpability

The push for establishing Job’s guilt as a means of rebuke and remedy confirms and

denies the sovereignty of God. Job is cast as the injured party in Job 1–2:7, but the transition of

the storyline from heaven to earth calls for someone to take responsibility for the tragedies and

his illness. These happenings cannot be random acts because this would completely undermine

the authority of the Divine’s position.

Intentions of commiseration and consolation shift quickly to the visitors’ attempts to

rationalize and assign blame. They determine that fault ultimately rests upon Job without

legitimate divine revelation, and God is responsible for the punishments but not culpable in the

sense of guilt. The contemplation of legal terms (character, harm, risk, at-will, and justification)

helps to define and answer two questions. Is there a difference between culpability and

responsibility, and does that difference establish who is at fault for Job’s circumstances?

The Difference between Culpability and Responsibility

In Chapter Three, a discussion on the OT attributions of evil led to the determination that

the Jews did not initially credit Satan with being the originator of evil and suffering. The debate

of culpability versus responsibility is elementary in this sense. Further exploration of the

emergent character traits of God, the šāṭān, and Job demonstrate differences between culpability

and responsibility and how these interact with legal terms, as follows:

164

• God allows harm to come to Job, his family, and his property without assuming any

risk. “For God⎯who possesses complete information about everything⎯risk does

not exist,” states Larry Alexander.

The traits that form God’s character (i.e., holy,

just, merciful, and loving) ensure his actions are always justifiable. No matter how

long Job’s imposed trials and the resultant suffering could last, God would ultimately

be in control, taking full responsibility for the parameters of the šāṭān’s actions (1:12;

2:6).

• The šāṭān’s character is flawed. He is the author and perpetrator of harm without

assuming guilt or displaying remorse. Disdain, spitefulness, and jealousy cloud his

judgment and prevent him from weighing likely outcomes and acknowledging that he

will lose the wager. The outcomes are based solely on the spiritual natures of God and

Job. The šāṭān does not act at will against Job; his plan requires God’s permission,

and the Divine limits the scope of his work.

• Job’s righteous character, in word and deed, is declared and supported by his actions.

He weighs the risks of his arguments in the Prologue and throughout the Dialogue as

he contemplates God’s character, his integrity, their culpability, and traditional

Jewish theology and associated beliefs. In his responses, Job was free to act at will

and be utterly human. He could blaspheme God and abandon his faith, but he does

not. God’s testimony ensures that Job’s character is above reproach. From the Lord’s

point of view, there is no substantive spiritual risk for Job. God’s perception is

second-guessed throughout the book and continues to be so.

Larry Alexander, “Culpability,” in OHPCL, ed. John Deigh and David Dolinko (New York, NY: Oxford

University Press, 2011), 221.

165

Controlling Consequences

The at-will influence of God and Job’s decisions control Job’s circumstances as they

unfold, thereby controlling the consequences of actions that have historical and eschatological

significance. Recognizing and affirming that Job and his story are historical should not limit the

diversity of meaning embedded within the text and the layering of potential outcomes; ancient

scholars agree. Aquinas combines his views with Gregory I, who quotes, “Holy Writ by manner

of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a

fact, it reveals a mystery.”

This corresponds to a “historical or literal” meaning; the mystery is

considered allegorical, moral, and anagogical.

To this end, multiple layers of meaning in the

book of Job have temporal and eternal significance.

The prophetic and eschatological inferences in the Joban text are substantive and of great

consequence. Within the mysterious layers, one can find the Son of Man, Jesus Christ (16:21;

26:6; 35:8), the prediction of the destruction and restoration of the Jews (40–41), and

eschatological overtones of redemption, forgiveness, judgment, and restoration (38–42). Placing

limitations on the depth and breadth of the Holy Scriptures and divine involvement are costly

mistakes when trying to obtain wisdom and handle the tender souls of the suffering. God is

temporally and eternally responsible for Job and all mankind. Job is not culpable, and he is

determined to prove it.

Aquinas, ST I, q. 1, a. 10; See also Adam Van Wart, T. “Aquinas’s Eschatological Historiography: Job,

Providence, and the Multiple Senses of the Historical Event,” ProEcc 30, no. 1 (2020): 32-50.

The historical and literal meanings correspond to actual happenings on earth within the created order.

The allegorical meanings take a historical and literal meaning and imply a hidden meaning. The moral meaning

concerns the interconnected natures of “natural law” and “eternal law,” and how these are “built into historical

realities,” teaches Van Wart. The anagogical meaning is to associate historical events with eschatological meanings;

Van Wart, “Multiple Senses,” 21, 37-40.

166

Controlling Culpability

The legal definition of culpability has two applicable case characteristics for the Joban

actors (God, the šāṭān, and Job) as conduits for actions that affect the story. Job serves as a

plaintiff in his relationship with God and a defendant in his relationships with the visitors. As a

plaintiff, Job claims his righteousness absolves him from any responsibility or culpability. He is

unaware of any “unjustifiable” risks he took in “his conduct” that “would adversely affect” him

and his family in such a catastrophic manner.

As a defendant, he argues for and against his

culpability and determines he does not deserve such devastating judgments. Job would only be at

fault if he failed to recognize and avoid sinful actions and repent of his transgressions (sins of

omission and commission).

Culpability must then fall to the character that acted with full knowledge of Job’s

innocence, desiring to affect him negatively, his family’s wellbeing, and concomitant interests.

Since the šāṭān had a complete understanding of the meaning of righteousness and ignored Job’s

holiness, his actions are unjustifiable, and he is culpable. In the same sense, Job questions

whether God is responsible for what has occurred and releases the Lord from culpability by

declaring the perceived divine actions were within the parameters of God’s authority (1:21;

2:10). He initially separates responsibility and culpability, and then later, he sets about to argue

for and against God’s rights due to the lack of consolation received during suffering and the

grieving process.

The visitors’ attempts to control the assignment of culpability to justify their accusations

and arguments for God’s sovereign rule and man’s propensity to sin mostly fail. They have

Larry Alexander and Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, “Confused Culpability, Contrived Causation, and the

Collapse of Tort Theory,” Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Torts, University of San Diego Legal Studies

Paper 13-114 (March, 2013): 1.

167

“contrived” causality based on the retribution principle, which can only lead to Job’s

culpability.

If God has punished Job, despite his righteousness, then this makes the Divine

unjust, and his character is damaged. Taking unjustifiable risks in his dealings with mankind

makes him reckless. The visitors have confused responsibility with culpability, failing to

recognize that the insertion of evil means that injustice exists in the world and that God stays his

hand according to his will.

Without evil, there is no need for morality and justice; everything would be completely

righteous. Worldly justice is consistently flawed due to the temporal presence of evil and

suffering on earth, hence one of the reasons for contemplated theodicies. Michael Fox purports,

God can never be at fault because he “is amoral. When expectations of divine justice are

abandoned, divine injustice ceases to be a problem.”

This is not to say that God does not punish

injustices, but he may do so “incompletely” because “other principles and concerns may override

it … according to [his] divine will,” clarifies Fox.

Evil and its resulting injustices are balanced on a curve, so to speak, and understanding

how God metes out his defense of the righteous cannot be confined to the physical world.

Human beings are confounded by this and rationalize that God should exercise immediate and

commensurate justice due to the presence of evil and its resulting injustices. God has ultimate

responsibility, but this does not change the culpability of the šāṭān in Job’s circumstances or his

continued destructive efforts of evil intention in the future.

Alexander and Ferzan, “Confused Culpability,” 1.

Michael V. Fox, “The Meanings of the Book of Job,” JBL 137, no. 1 (Spring, 2018): 7.

Ibid.

168

A Sovereign God and the Culpability of Job

Arguing for the sovereignty and culpability of God ignores the differences between

divine culpability and responsibility, while it somewhat affirms his rule. This study has

acknowledged that God accepts responsibility for the culpability of the šāṭān by justly preserving

Job’s life. Job, his wife, and the visitors all recognize that God is likely the instigator and

perpetrator of the actions against Job. Distributive justice through retribution is central to their

queries, difficulties, and conclusions, except for Job and his wife. The arguments of the wife and

visitors acknowledge God as sovereign, but the visitors believe Job is a sinner.

The Wife’s Arguments (2:9-10)

The range of interpretive opinions about the short exchange between Job and his wife in

chapter two is so varied that much of the resulting commentary needs to be more conclusive.

Exploring early Jewish writings reveals valid limitations on what can be extracted from the

biblical text. Taking a hard line on any interpretation without understanding the need for

allowances is inadvisable.

Job’s wife appears to be a woman who was loved and well cared for

by her husband, suffered greatly, and has been viewed too harshly by her critics. The varied

historical opinions about her have continued to modern times, especially regarding her integrity.

Women of Folly

Attempts to acknowledge the harsh and unfair world of women in antiquity have

garnered a more compassionate treatment of Job’s wife in later midrash, like Midrash Iyyob, and

in scholarly work by authors with a feminist slant (Holly Henry, Patricia Kirkpatrick, Linda Day,

Allowances for interpretive uncertainty would include: (a) the patriarchal culture of Job’s day; (b) the

dismissal of the suffering of Job’s wife; (c) the assumption that Job’s wife developed a loathing demeanor toward

her husband; and (d) her disappearance from the scene altogether makes room for a second wife.

169

Katherine Low, and Carol Newsom).

Henry puts forth, “If patriarchal interpretations have

limited our understanding of women, then destructionist and feminist rereadings of biblical texts

… allow for a rethinking of our ideology regarding women.”

Rabbinical references toward

women can be unfavorable, and the presence of these past societal norms in Job’s marriage is

one of certainty.

Rabbinic literature overwhelmingly presents Job’s wife, Eve, and Dinah as negative

female figures; however, there is a broader scheme at work. Midrashic exposition of Genesis

reveals consistent opinions that “various flaws inherent in women are exemplified by different

females in the Bible.”

In Bereishit Rabbah, several “traits” are used to characterize women,

like “Gluttons, Eavesdroppers, Sloths…, Envious” and “instigators and thieves.”

Names and

references associated with these characterizations are Eve (Gen 3:6), Sarai/Sarah (Gen 18:6, 10),

Rachel (Gen 30:1; 31:9; 34:14-16), Leah (Gen 34:14-16), Dina/Dinah (Gen 34:1) and Job’s wife

(Job 2:9).

Some of these conclusions are over the top since many OT males exhibit these same

traits (i.e., Adam, Jonah, Lot, and David).

Bereishit Rab. 19:12; b. B. Bat. 15b:7; 16a:15; See Patricia G. Kirkpatrick, “Curse God and Die – Job’s

Wife and the Struggle for Job’s Transformation,” in Evil and Death: Conceptions of the Human in Biblical, Early

Jewish, Greco-Roman and Egyptian Literature, DCLS 18, ed. Beate Ego and Ulrike Mittmann (Berlin, Germany:

De Gruyter, 2013), 43, 45-6; Linda Day, “Wisdom and the Feminine in the Hebrew Bible,” in Engaging the Bible in

a Gendered World: An Introduction to Feminist Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ed.

Linda Day and Carolyn Pressler (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 114-27; Katherine Low, The

Bible, Gender, and Reception History: The Case of Job’s Wife, vol. 1, ScrTCPer, ed. Claudia V. Camp, W. J. Lyons,

and Andrew Mein (London, England, Bloomsbury Publishing Place, 2013), 3-4; Carol A. Newsom, “Job,” in The

Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox,

1998), 139-40.

Holly Henry, “Job’s Wife’s Name,” College Literature 18 , no. 1 (February, 1991): 26.

Rami Schwartz, “The Blessed Mother Sarah: The Figure of Sarah in Genesis Rabbah in Light of

Christian Exegesis and the Rise of the Virgin Mary” (MA thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem,

2017), 120-1.

Ibid., 121; Bereishit Rab. 45:5.

Schwartz, “The Blessed Mother,” 121; Bereishit Rab. 45:5; 57:4; Longman Job, 89-90.

170

Associations of Folly to Job’s Wife

Comparing the folly of Eve and Dinah to that of Job’s wife is a testimony to them being

human. Lapses in judgment and decisions can lead to unintended circumstances by not fully

expecting or comprehending the possibilities of life-changing consequences that could arise.

Predominately in Rabbinic literature, Eve is the chief initiator of evil, having tempted her

husband, and is portrayed as the main reason for humanity being thrust into a sinful state. Dinah

is characterized negatively as a “gadabout,” a “harlot,” and a woman of folly.

The association

of Dinah and Job’s wife relates to external Jewish sources identifying her specifically and the

supposed shared nature of foolishness.

In the Tg. Job, the wife bears the name Dinah (Tg. Job 2:9), which is unsurprising since

this literary work relies on earlier Rabbinic interpretations.

The sexual defilement of Dinah by

“Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite” (Gen 34:2-3) prevents her family from securing her a

Jewish husband (Gen 34:13; 46:10). Purportedly, Dinah may have become the first or second

wife of Job (T. Job, Tg. Job, Pseudo-Philo).

Pseudo-Philo claims Dinah was the only wife of

Job,

And thereafter Job took her to wife and begat of her 14 sons and 6 daughters, even 7 sons and 3

daughters before he was smitten with affliction, and thereafter when he was made whole 7 sons and 3

daughters (LAB 8:7-8).

After Jacob moved his family back to the land of Canaan from Padam-aram in upper Mesopotamia (Gen

33:18), Dinah’s perceived foolishness got her into trouble when “she went out to see the daughters of the land” (Gen

30:4); Bereishit Rab. 80:1.

The Hebrew term  (nǝḇālâ, meaning an act of folly, as in a shameful act of wickedness) is used in

Genesis 34:7 RSV to describe Dinah, according to Vicchio. In looking at the RSV translation in conjunction with

several others, the verse is describing Shechem’s foolish and disgraceful act, not describing Dinah’s behavior.

Although, this interpretation has been adapted widely; Vicchio, Job, 59.

Céline Mangan, “The Targum of Job,” in The Aramaic Bible: The Targums, vol. 15, ed. Kevin Cathcart,

Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991), 26-7; b. B. Bat. 15a; Bereishit

Rab. 73:9; Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews: Bible Times and Characters from the Creation to Jacob, 6th

ed., vol. 1, trans. Henrietta Szold (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1913), 396.

Michael C. Legaspi, “Job’s Wives in the ‘Testament of Job’: A Note on the Synthesis of Two

Traditions,” JBL 127, no. 1 (Spring, 2008): 72-3.

James, Biblical Antiquities, 97; Legaspi, “Job’s Wives,” 73.

171

While Pseudo-Philo’s assertion and others are frequently viewed as aggrandizements of

the original Joban text, the T. Job aligns with the LXX by claiming that Job married an Arabian

woman, who was the first wife of Job who died (T. Job 1:5-6; 42:17b LXX), but the LXX does

not name Dinah as a second wife. The MT makes no such statements, and some say that the book

of Job discounts this completely. In agreement, it is unlikely that Job simultaneously had two

wives; however, if the first wife died or left, he could have remarried. Further, any character flaw

imposed upon the first wife would not relate to Dinah if she were the second wife. Even so,

Michael Legaspi and others note the linguistic connection between the Hebrew term for folly in

Job 2:9 ( ) to Shechem’s supposed act of wickedness ( ) in Genesis 34:7.

Existing texts, including the documented writings of the midrashim, do not fully answer

questions about Job’s wife. Contrary to prevalent traditions, she may have been an honorable

woman who needed to express her difficulties and pain. Doing so may have tempted Job, but just

like Adam, he could succumb or avoid folly.

Spared or Not

The harshness of early Jewish and Christian commentary has given way to a more

holistic approach to whether or not she was spared. In deference to Chrysostom’s comment about

her being left untouched for a nefarious purpose, she may have been spared a physical death, but

she was far from living a spared life.

T. K. Cheyne (1841–1915) purports that the wife’s

avoidance of death is a “touch of quiet humour,” reinforcing that Job’s wife is nothing more than

Additionally, Legaspi outlines two purposes for biblical connecting Dinah with Job. First, this supplies a

location for where her brothers took her (Gen 34:26). The caring displays of her brothers, Simeon and Levi, in

avenging her defilement and finding a suitable match is indicative of the value placed upon their physical and

spiritual lineage in conjunction with their moral beliefs (34:7, 13, 31). Second, this places “Job in Israelite history”

through marriage into an Israelite family, shoring up beliefs that Job existed in the latter time of the Patriarchs and

was a legitimate Gentile God-fearer; Legaspi, “Job’s Wives,” 73-4.

Originally cited in Chapter Two; Chrysostome, Commentaire sur Job, 175.

172

a literary accouterment in the story.

Characterizing this as irony would be more appropriate;

there is nothing humorous about a mother losing her ten children in a single day. However, some

scholars see her as a “wronged victim. … Through no fault of her own, simply due to the social

structures of the time.”

Wilson discusses the wife’s reliance upon Job for her welfare, although

the LXX portrays a woman who is not beaten, even if there are overtones of discontent with her

lot in life (2:9a-e LXX).

The additional content in the LXX and the T. Job gives reasonable details about her deep

sorrow over the loss of her children and illudes to the hardships of caregiving and taking on work

as a servant (2:9a-e LXX). The T. Job describes the wife as a beggar and “slave … to provide

bread for Job and herself” (T. Job 2–3).

In fact, its author relays that Satan tricked her into

selling her hair for bread (T. Job 5:17-23). The reliance of the T. Job on the LXX is uncontested

since it similarly describes the wife’s character, but the HB lacks such details. Therefore,

adapting and internalizing these suppositions as fact reads into the biblical text, lessening the

spiritual tenacity of this couple and their relationships with each other and God.

Curse God and Die

The encouragement of Job’s wife is to “curse God and die” (2:9), which could come from

either good or bad intentions. The use of   (bāraḵ, to bless) instead of  (qālal, meaning

T. K. Cheyne, Job and Solomon: Or the Wisdom of the Old Testament (London, England: Kegan Paul,

Trench & Co., 1887), 14.

Wilson lists several scholars who share a more sympathetic view like Clines, van Wolde, Brenner, and

David Penchansky; Wilson, Job, 46.

Ibid.

Legaspi, “Job’s Wives,” 76-7.

173

“curse”) juxtaposes the two concepts.

In 2:9, a curse would bring perceived blessings from

Job’s death, such as an end to Job’s earthly pain, his wife’s burden would be partially lifted, and

the perception of compounding suffering would be lessened. Should Job’s wife be villainized for

wanting relief and seeing an end to the daily sacrifices that have become a list of unending

hardships? She is motivated to preserve and confirm Job’s integrity, and Job acknowledges their

shared beliefs in 2:10.

Kirkpatrick expresses concern over the historical transmission of the text, which may

have been reinterpreted or adjusted by adding punctuation.

Taking the first statement in 2:9 as

interrogatory infers “a criticism of Job’s faithfulness, a sarcastic denigration of his faith, and/or a

shallow and course reproach.”

Making it declarative, such as “Hold on to your integrity,” can

infer encouragement and affirmation of Job’s morality and spirituality so that the yissurin would

be divinely distributed.

Subsequently, Job’s wife confirms that the disasters cannot be

retributive because Job is righteous, which solicits a reaction.

As a result, Job recognizes that he has a choice to make. Is it not possible that Job is the

one who overreacts to her statement?

More information is needed to determine precisely what

happened between the couple. Commentators should not conclusively fault her for being foolish,

innately, or in a moment of disregard, nor should they relegate her entirely to being unsupportive

R. Abba bar Kahana (c. late third century), R. Samuel ben Nissim Masnuth (c. thirteenth century), and R.

Isaac Hakohen Kook (1865-1935) were among those who did not equate Job’s wife as evil. Kahana interprets 2:10

as being spoken by Job in the plural tense “we,” implying that his wife was also “pious;” Robert Gordis, The Book of

God and Man: A Study of Job (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1965), 21; Louis Ginzberg, Legends

of the Jews: Notes to Volumes I and II From the Creation to the Exodus, vol. 5 (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish

Publication Society, 1925), 386-7; Bereishit Rab. 19:12; GCHLOT, s.v. “   ,” 142-3; Ibid., s.v. “,” 733.

Kirkpatrick, “Curse God and Die,” 43-55.

Ibid., 46.

Ibid.

Newsom interprets Job’s response to be an “outburst.” The possibility is that he lashes out at the one

person that he can, and this could be precipitated by his lack of understanding for her statement; Newsom, “Job,”

140.

174

or lacking in personal integrity. What does seem apparent is that the couple agreed on God’s

sovereignty and culpability, as opposed to the forthcoming arguments for Job’s sinfulness.

Arguments Among Friends

The Prologue presents Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar as dutiful men who believe in God

and are close to Job. The language implies vested connections with Job by identifying them as

יֵע ֵר (rē'ê, meaning “friends”), as opposed to םי ִכ ָאְל ַמ (mal'āḵîm, meaning “messengers”).

The text

further stresses their good intentions to console Job and how they sit quietly until he breaks the

silence (2:13).

What transpires in the three speech cycles (4–14; 15–21; 22–27) following the

Prologue does not speak well for them.

The men assume the roles of messengers of God in the Dialogue, being deeply affected

by Job’s crisis and offended by his opening curse and lament (3:1-26).

Job’s words must have

been shocking to hear, and the friends’ faulty responses are influenced by their urgency to

correct Job’s perceived blasphemy. Their rigid theology and how they view the divine-human

relationship causes them to focus more on sharing their wisdom by talking at Job instead of with

him. Samuel Balentine recognizes that “their reliance on a priori truths, which in their judgment

trump all particular anomalies, seeds an extended debate about primary and contingent truths.”

The friends’ individual and corporate views of Job’s situation must align with their

perception of God’s character and Job’s culpability; otherwise, they do not need to deliver any

Samuel E. Balentine, Have You Considered My Servant Job?: Understanding the Biblical Archetype of

Patience, Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament, ed. by James L. Crenshaw (Columbia, SC: University of

South Carolina Press, 2015), 158-9.

m. Mo'ed Qaṭ. 28b:23.

Job 3 and 23 reveal much about the conditional and dispositional movements that characterize Job’s

arguments for God’s sovereignty and his contemplation of the retribution principle. These two passages will be

discussed at length in Chapter Seven.

Balentine, My Servant Job, 160.

175

arguments.

Menachem Fisch claims that Job and the visitors are religiously opposed, while

Peter Lockwood states that “Job and his comforters” share an “unshakeable conviction that the

divine-human relationship revolves around sin and retribution.”

Although the friends and Job

share common beliefs, their backgrounds are diverse, and their approaches are individualized.

The friends’ speeches contextualize Job’s increasing desperation to get God’s attention and revel

in Job’s introspections on his innocence.

Images and themes emphasize parallels between the speeches without logical

advancement and clear-cut responses to the preceding speaker.

Andersen surmises, “The

speakers are not trying to convince one another, even when they address each other. … This is

why it is hard to trace progress in the discovery of truth as the argument[s]” proceed and “to

ascribe a consistent and well-defined ‘position’ to each of the four speakers.”

Repeated

postulations of rebuke (telling Job what he has and continues to do wrong) and remedy

(explaining how the situation can be righted or resolved) are consistently clear. The rebukes and

remedies focus on three categories of humans⎯the wicked, the repentant, and the righteous.

Using arguments as a naming convention for the content of these speeches reflects the juridical nature of

the text and is an extension of the legal language employed in the Prologue. The exposition of the visitors’

arguments will not be as extensive. The aim is to deduce how these men view God’s sovereignty and Job’s

culpability.

Menachem Fisch, “Job and the Bible’s Theo-Political Divide,” Religions 10, no. 1 (January, 2019): 1;

Peter Lockwood, “God’s Speech from the Whirlwind: The Transformation of Job through the Renewal of His Mind

(Job 38–42),” LTJ 45, no. 3 (2011): 169.

Refer to background information in Chapter Two (pp. 49-53).

Some of the associated images and themes are used throughout the speeches. One of the most prominent

is the use of “dark,” “darkened,” or “darkness” by Job (5:14; 10:21-22; 11:22, 25; 12:16; 13:12-13; 19:8; 23:17;

24:16-17; 26:10; 28:3; 29:3; 29:3; 30:26), the friends (11:17; 15:22-23, 30; 18:6a, 18a; 20:26), and Elihu (24:22;

37:19).

Andersen, Job, 108.

176

The Stage is Set

The HB does not state when the visitors arrived, but the Tg. Job explains that the friends

eventually visit Job after being compelled by supernatural occurrences.

The visitors are taken

aback as they approach Job because he is unrecognizable (2:12) and appears like a dead person.

The commentary in Chelkat Mechokek, written by R. Moshe Alshikh (1508–1593), conveys that

the friends intended to go through the motions of Jewish tradition by making an appearance and

bowing down. They did not intend to “sit down with him, nor to weep and tear and throw dust on

their heads.”

The resulting speeches reveal inconsistencies in how they live out their faith and

friendships with Job despite understanding the expectations for both. Eliphaz engages with Job

as the first speaker in three speech cycles (4–5; 15; 22), and with each speech, he becomes more

aggressive toward Job. He speaks from his observations (4:8-11), chastises Job (15:1-16), and

levels false accusations to prove his points (22:5-15).

Bildad has three speeches in the Dialogue (8; 18; 25). Structurally, he begins with rebuke,

gives advice, and supports his arguments through reasoning in the first two speeches.

Chapters

eight and eighteen prove him to be reactionary; undoubtedly, he is offended (18:2). Bildad takes

Job’s comments as personal attacks on his doctrinal beliefs instead of Job expressing anguish

over God’s actions (8:2-3; 18:1-4). Bildad’s last speech moves to an aloof tenor as he reverts to

praise for God’s person (25).

The men noticed that their trees died, their food turned into the meat of wild animals, and their wine

turned to blood. This motivated them to go see Job; thereby, securing their salvation from Gehenna (the afterlife for

the unrighteousness), which God created; Tg. Job 2:11; b. B. Bat. 16a:13.

Moshe Alshikh, “Chelkat Mechokek on Job,” The William Davidson Foundation, 2:12,

https://www.sefaria.org/Chelkat_Mechokek_on_Job?tab=contents.

Alden, Job, 107.

177

Zophar’s two speeches convey his bitterness toward Job and a sense of superiority (11;

20). James Strahan (1863–1926) explains that Zophar’s “rhetorical diatribe” is the “utterance of a

partisan,” who is (1) “mistaking the passionate resentment of his wounded vanity for the

inspiration of true religion,” (2) magnif[ying] God’s strictness with a zeal He will not own,” and

(3) “making God … in his own image.”

He describes his “haste” as a personal character trait,

and his directness is rooted in his own “inward agitation” (20:2). His rhetoric aligns with the

retribution principle but goes well beyond by using the strongest of terms to describe God’s

harsh judgments. Alternatively, he believes he has made the betterment of Job a priority without

seeing that he is confirming his “own” view of God to prove his summations are valid.

Job is juridically innocent (1:1, 8), and the friends consistently put themselves on the

juridical plane due to their critiques. They wrongly accuse him and become his oppressors.

Clines aptly states that “Job’s friends fail … in their denunciations of” him, and this conveys that

the “doctrine of retribution is naive, dangerous, inhuman and, above all, false.”

Portrayals of

God as a ruler and Job as a sinner are misplaced. This is not to declare they lack good intentions

based upon their moral obligations. Mans’ good intentions differ from righteous ones

undergirded by sound doctrinal expectations.

Portraits of the Wicked

The overriding rationale behind the friends’ arguments is to portray Job as a sinner

because this is the only possible explanation for his difficulties. Job (and his children) must be

counted among the wicked, or the friends’ doctrinal positions will be challenged, and their

individual and corporate standings before God may be jeopardized. What begins with gentle

James Strahan, The Book of Job Interpreted (Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark, 1913), 181-2.

Ibid., 182.

Clines, Readerly Questions, 111.

178

probing words from Eliphaz (Job 4) escalates to the denigration of Job’s character in raw

portrayals of the wicked and God’s judgments.

Just as Job is suffering, the wicked will suffer and face holistically calamitous, deprived,

and depraved existences. Life is devoid of hope and confidence (4:17-21; 8:13b-14a); if either

does exist for the sinners, these will dissipate or abruptly be taken away. Zophar admits that a

semblance of hope remains, but only in preparation for death (11:20d).

The wicked cannot

escape (11:20b; 15:30) on their own from the darkness of their sin, temporal suffering, and the

punishments of God. Physically, eyes will fail (11:20a), bodies will “writhe in pain” (15:29a),

skin and limbs will be “devoured” (18:13), and “terrors” will disturb their rest and ringing in

their ears (15:21a). They will experience hunger and digestive discomfort (15:23a). Socially and

economically, Job’s fictional sins are reflected in how unresolved sin affects the wicked’s daily

life, mainly by Zophar (8:18; 15; 20). The legacies of families and inheritances are interrupted

and erased; the “shoot” of the wicked will be dry up and be no more, for they will have “no

offspring or descendants” (8:15; 15:30; 18:16-19). Eternally, the wicked will be enveloped by

darkness.

Eliphaz’s Portrayal of the Wicked

In contrast to the others, Eliphaz claims that Job is righteous at first, entering gently into

the conversation (4:1-2) and affirming Job’s good deeds from the past (4:3-4). His voice moves

from being caring and considerate in chapter four to a scathing attitude by chapter twenty-two.

He postures that only the wicked would perish in similar circumstances because of God’s anger

The wicked “hope that they will breathe their last breath” (11:20d). This hope for death could be

considered an echo of the wife’s suggestion (2:9).

Of the three friends, Eliphaz communicates that he admired Job and initially grapples with

disappointment, rather than the anger and offense that surface by Job 22; Hyun, Job the Unfinalizable, 129-30, 132.

179

(4:7-9). The seed of Eliphaz’s doubt in Job’s innocence is found in the middle of these verses.

He verbally processes out loud why Job’s faith in God and the “integrity of [his] ways” (4:6)

may not be enough to sustain him. Eliphaz sees a man not applying the wisdom demonstrated by

his past righteous actions now that suffering has come to Job’s door (4:5). He employs images of

lions brought into submission and silenced, unable to sustain themselves or their cubs (4:10-

11).

Bildad and Zophar’s Portrayals

Unlike Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar offer little consideration to Job in their first speeches,

asking antagonistic rhetorical questions (8:1-3; 11:1-30). Their first speeches do not convey

interest in hearing Job’s responses, as an apparent lack of patience and escalating vehemence

pervades their second speeches. Bildad and Zophar automatically warn Job about his perceived

sins and abstractly orate on the traits, actions, and suffering that befall the wicked.

Bildad sees the punishment of the wicked unabashedly and as a matter of justice (they get

what they deserve). His rhetorical questions and the structure of his first speech are laid out

differently. He does not limit his portrayal of the unrighteous to only Job, talking obscurely.

Unlike the other friends, Bildad’s first application of the retribution principle raises the prospect

that the death of Job’s children was on account of their sinfulness (8:4). He suggests this by

using “when your children sinned” instead of “if,” which would have lent itself to certainty.

his second speech, Bildad expounds on the dire circumstances of a wicked man who falls under

Edward Greenstein notes that the lion is used as an image of the wicked in selected scriptures (Pss 7:3;

17:12; 22:14), and Eliphaz’s comparison is that Job may be among the wicked but does not need to remain there.

Job’s condition, exhibiting “cries” and “growling” in 3:24, are akin to the wicked; Edward L. Greenstein, Job: A

New Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2019), 21.

The Prologue does not mention any specific sins of Job’s children, save Job’s concern that they might

curse “God in their hearts” (1:5). None of the other friends mention Job’s children.

180

punishment, illuding to Job’s future being cut short and darkened (18:5-6). The wicked will be

trapped, snared, terrorized, harassed, and weakened by disaster (18:7-12).

As mentioned, Zophar focuses on external evidence of the effects of unrepentant sins. He

presumes Job knows that the “rejoicing of the wicked is short” (20:4), and this should be at the

forefront of his thinking.

The disappearance of the wicked evidences the decline in societal

positions (20:8-9); they become an afterthought (20:7-9).

Ibn Ezra, the Middle-Age sage, says a

wicked man “will perish forever, as his cause is lost forever.”

R. David Altschuler (1687–

1769), known as the Baal Metzudot, says of a godless man, “The people of his place will no

longer see him” (20:9).

Moreover, the unrighteous will not find enjoyment in their labors and

rewards (20:17-18). Their prosperity and property will significantly decrease (20:21, 28-29),

stirring them to “seize” other people’s possessions (20:19), as well as oppress and neglect the

poor (20:28).

Portraits of the Repentant

Rebuke after rebuke leads to the primary solution for Job’s sinfulness; the remedy is

repentance. The friends either call for Job’s repentance or speak in general terms, describing the

relationship between God and the repentant. Aquinas strongly supported the idea of God

distributing reward and punishment in response to man’s honorable or dishonorable state and

deeds.

The swiftness with which God responds to the wicked with severe punishment and to the

Bildad encouraged Job to seek the wisdom passed down through generations (8:8-10), and Eliphaz also

mentioned that past wisdom has not been “concealed” (15:18).

Bildad prefaces this by saying that the wicked grasp for past positions of success and affluence (8:15-17).

This follows Eliphaz’s statement about the “company of the godless” being “barren” (15:34), which may imply that

no one desires to be around them.

Sefaria, “Ibn Ezra on Job,” 20:7, https://www.sefaria.org/Ibn_Ezra_on_Job?tab=contents.

David Altschuler, “Metzudat David on Job,” 20:9, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Metzudat_David_

on_Job?tab=contents.

Aquinas, ST I, q. 65, a. 2.

181

repentant with blessed’ restoration should be an incentive for Job’s immediate compliance. “The

elaborate picture of the repentant sinner’s peaceful security” is part of a strategy to contrast the

weight of the sinner’s guilt with the lighter countenance of repentance.

The friends seek prompt

penitence, and the outcome may be a lavish second life for Job.

Zophar’s Portrayal of the Repentant

Zophar is bothered by the perceived attitude of Job, accusing him of such boasting and

scoffing that others are compelled to respond and rebuke him for his words (11:1-3). He implores

Job to consider the wisdom that God offers and its measurements.

The path to receiving the

remedy includes (a) Job’s submission to divine wisdom, (b) directing “his heart rightly”

(11:13a), (c) releasing wrongdoing and moving far away from it (11:13b), and (d) not allowing

“malice” to “dwell” (11:14b). Zophar affirms the availability of salvation and the possibility of

forgiveness (11:6c), for the friends do not believe that Job is neither “righteous” (4:17a) nor

“pure” (4:17; 8:16; 11:4) in God’s sight.

He reinforces a simple biblical truth⎯impossible things for man to do are possible for

God. The results of repentance and forgiveness for Job would touch every area of his life; he

would experience complete restoration (11:15-19).

Then derision surfaces (11:20), echoing

Job’s despair in his curse and lament (3). This sets up Zophar’s later diatribe on the wicked

(20:4-29).

Hartley, Job, 208.

Zophar describes the depth and breadth of the Divine’s wisdom and knowledge as lacking in comparison

to the earth’s measurements. He defines it as “high as the heavens; … deeper than Sheol; … its measurement is

longer than the earth, and broader than the sea” (11:8-9). God’s wisdom is infinite in the face of the finite existence

of Job, which is later echoed in the theophany and addressed in Chapters Eight and Nine.

The results of repentance and forgiveness are varied in the text and play on common themes, such as

darkness and light, hope and rest. Several highlighted changes in Job’s life would be that he could “forget …

trouble” (11:16a), have a “brighter” life (11:17), rediscover a “trust” that would empower “hope” (11:18), be

completely at “rest” (11:18c-19a), and have his social position restored, evidenced by those who will “flatter him

(11:19b).

182

Bildad and Eliphaz’s Portrayals

Bildad and Eliphaz bookend Zophar’s presentation of salvation and the results of

repentance. Bildad issues “if” statements at the beginning of chapter eight that provide scope for

his assessment of Job’s condition. Although this might convey a concession to Job’s uprightness,

his later comments do not support this conclusion (8:4-6). The dire straits of Job’s despair and

anguish will be transformed by repentance; he will once again “laugh” (8:21a) and experience

times of “joy” (8:21b). The haters and those who have criticized him (8:22; 22:19b) will be no

more (22:19b). After Eliphaz’s prominent portrayal of the wicked and his terrible accusations

against Job, he also implores him to repent and be reconciled to God (22:21). By accepting and

internalizing God’s wisdom (22:22), the punishment of God can be lifted (22:23a), and this will

lead to restoration (22:23b-29).

Portraits of the Righteous

The portraits of the righteous are markedly different from those of the wicked and the

repentant. All the friends’ speeches include general elements that focus on the righteous. Bildad

sees the righteous as “pure” and “upright,” being persons of “integrity” (8:6, 20). Eliphaz and

Zophar take a more personal approach by leaving generalities behind and putting Job squarely in

that camp if he repents.

Eliphaz focuses on the benefits that will be afforded to Job when he is once again in a

right relationship with God, laying out the changes that Job can expect (22:21-30). He notes that

God will provide possessions of great worth (22:25), he will “hear” Job’s “prayers” (22:27), all

Job’s activities will be blessed (22:28), and his social position will be restored, allowing him to

once again “speak with confidence” (22:29). He implies Job’s culpability by saying that these

things will result once Job’s hands are clean (22:30).

183

Zophar also speaks in personal terms, acknowledging that Job would “forget” his trouble.

He would not be controlled by any distant memory (11:16). Job can be optimistic about the

future (11:17), trust in God, have hope (11:18), and enjoy holistic well-being (physical and

mental rest; 11:18-19a). Social acceptance and public standing will once again be his (11:19b).

The difference between the friends’ personal comments on the righteous is that Zophar voices a

reminder of Job’s sinfulness. To do so, he shifts in verse twenty back to the general portrayal of

the wicked’s fate (11:20). Case in point, the righteous have what Job had in the past, and Job will

have this again as a righteous man if he repents and is released from his culpability.

Arguments of Observation

The speeches of Elihu (32–37) are set apart from the three speech cycles of Job and his

friends, placed in between Job’s monologue (26–31) and the theophany (38–42).

The Tanakh

states that he was “angry with Job” and “his three friends” (32:3), implying that he had been

present for a portion of the speech cycles, if not all. The text distances him from his friends and

casts him, in retrospect, as no more than an observer and commentator. The younger Elihu (32:4)

does not have the same personal connection with Job, which lessens his inhibitions. He rebukes

the friends for their ill advice and condemnatory attitudes (32:12b-15). Yair Hoffman puts forth

The structure of this section in the book is divided into four to five speeches; however, Job 32–33 will be

treated as one speech for the purposes of this study. The first speech (32:6–33:33) makes a case for Elihu’s right to

speak, explains that Job has formed a faulty case against God, God warns and convicts men, and Job can expect help

in pleading his case before God due to the assistance of an angel. The second speech (34) preaches to the friends,

and then discusses God’s goodness, demonstrated by his omni-traits, his justice, and judgments in relation to Job’s

words. The third speech (35) is for an audience of one, that being Job. He wants Job to understand that the greatness

and rule of God is not affected by man’s actions, whether good or bad. God may not answer every prayer and

petition (35:12-13). Finally, the fourth speech (36–37) is a final explanation of the righteous and the wicked, which

is followed by a hymn to God’s wisdom, power, and authority.

184

that Elihu’s words are “another trial which afflicted Job.”

Hoffman’s view echoes the views of

others, like Selvaggio, who perceives Elihu in a “different light than Job’s other comforters.”

Elihu is set apart from the friends for several reasons, such as: (a) Elihu’s speeches hold a

“prominent place in the book’s drama;” (b) The content is unique and approaches Job’s attitude,

complaints, and arguments differently; (c) Elihu’s admonitions and instruction must have been

theologically sound because he was not rebuked by God or anyone else; and, (d) Job is silent

following each of Elihu’s speeches.

The junior visitor distinguishes himself further by

highlighting errors in the arguments of Job and his friends.

Distinguished or Cast Out

Elihu is a controversial figure in Jewish tradition, being aligned with the righteous as a

spiritual hero, cast out as a partner and collaborator of Satan, and relegated to a literary bridge to

foreshadow and prepare the reader for God’s appearance.

While there are far too many scholars

to list in either camp, Jewish sages of the later medieval period (tenth to the sixteenth century)

analyze Job and his message more favorably (e.g., Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Malbim, and Gaon).

Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection, 56.

Selvaggio, Considering Job, 75.

Selvaggio’s introduction and discussion on the differences between Elihu’a speeches from that of the

friends is partly based on the work of James Durham (1622–1658), who was a Puritan from Scotland, and Hywel

Jones. Commentators are split between likening Elihu’s attitude to the three friends and viewing him as speaking the

truth (Durham, Jones, Christopher Ash). Ash claims that Elihu’s message presents a “significantly different” point

of view; Selvaggio, 74-82; Hywel R. Jones, Job (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2007), 226; Christopher

Ash, Job: The Wisdom of the Cross, Preaching the Word (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 267-9.

The interpretation of the Elihu’s speeches depend upon one’s view of whether these are original to the

book. Three camps include the belief that the observer’s speeches are original to the work, not original but original

to the author and later added by him, or neither. For those who denounce their authenticity, there are “a number of

reasons, some about the structure and content of the book, some theological, and some grammatical and

etymological,” explains Vicchio; Vicchio, Job, 211-2; The diversity of opinions began with Johann Gottfried

Eichlorn’s assertion that the speeches are interpolations in the late eighteenth century. Stuhlmann affirmed that he

was against originality a few years after Eichlorn’s stand on the matter. Other scholars who align with their thinking

are Hoffman, A. S. Peake (1865-1929), Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891) S. R. Driver (1846–1914), and Friedrich

Delitzsch (1850–1922); Andersen, “The Elihu Speeches,” 77, 79; Stuhlmann, Hiob, 40-1.

The Talmud claims that Elihu was “one of the seven prophets of the Gentiles (b. B. Bat. 15b:2). In stark

contrast, the T. Job claims he was a beast possessed by Satan (T. Job 10:8).

Maimonides, The Guide, 302.

185

Maimonides sees congruence with the other speakers, positing that Elihu “likewise censures and

rebukes Job, attributes justice to God, relates His wonders in nature, and holds that God is not

affected by the service of the worshipper, nor by the disobedience of the rebellious. All this has

already been said by” his “colleagues.”

Maimonides, Malbim, and Rashi elucidate on important

aspects of Elihu’s teaching (the love of God, the timing and punishment of the wicked, and the

mediating angel), and he is declared to have the superior message from amongst the visitors.

this is accurate, what errors in explanation about God and Job ignite Elihu’s fervor?

Errors in Explanation

Elihu views the wise explanations the friends and Job supplied as faulty because they rely

predominately on human experience. This is not to say that experiential wisdom does not have a

place in how believers internalize spiritual truths, using it to encourage and instruct; however,

divine knowledge is paramount. In many respects, his beliefs are aligned with the friends’

arguments on distributive and retributive justice (33:26; 34:12, 22, 24-26, 36-37; 35:5-6; 36:6,

10). Indeed, he has a different perspective on Job’s sin and suffering, approaching the topic

accordingly.

Ludger Schweinhorst-Schönberger states, “Elihu correctly recognizes that the

conflict between Job and his friends cannot resolve the dilemma of suffering. He acts as a

prophet and self-confidently represents revelational wisdom.”

Furthermore, he asserts that Elihu’s arguments are more theological than the friends, as

confirmed previously by Malbim and Maimonides.

Elihu acknowledges God as the Creator

Maimonides, The Guide, 302.

Ibid.; A. J. Rosenberg, Job: A New English Translation of Text, Rashi, and Other Commentaries (1989,

repr., New York, NY: Judaica Press, 1995), 171.

Sefaria, “Malbim on Job,” 32:1:5; Maimonides, The Guide, 302-3.

Ludger Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Order: Wisdom, Retribution, and Skepticism,” in OHWB, ed. Will

Kynes (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2021), 90.

Ibid.

186

(32:22; 35:10; 36:3; 40:26-31) and the Governor (34:13, 24; 37:5-13, 16a, 18a); he is

providential (35:10b-11; 36:31b) and powerful (36:5, 22, 30, 32; 37). Elihu closely ties these

roles to God being a teacher and bestower of superior wisdom (35:11; 36:22), claiming that “the

breath of the Almighty gives” true “understanding” (32:8b) because he is “greater than mankind”

(32:12b). Believing in retributive actions does ring true for Elihu, and he sees this as one facet of

God’s rule. However, Clines claims that Elihu does not label him as “the Retributor, but the

Great Communicator or Educator.”

In explaining theological aspects of God’s person and actions, his speeches move beyond

the arguments proffered by the other visitors. He respects their age but realizes they rely heavily

on their past and present experiences.

The friends err in explaining God’s sovereignty by

making him a consistent reactionary, a God constantly functioning as a responder, even though

they portray him as overseeing the administration of all things. They explain to Job that hope

comes from the representations of God’s ruling authority. God’s role is balanced within the

universe to facilitate a grand design and continuous plan for all Creation. Nonetheless, their

portrayal of the “dark side” of a retributive and angry God who cannot wait to dole out harsh

judgments leaves him inextricably tied to the whims of humanity.

They believe that Job’s

culpability has been established by the end of their speeches; Elihu disagrees.

Job was innocent before the disasters, making him undeserving of punishment.

The danger to Job’s soul is the unfolding scene of the present. Elihu observes Job’s

arguments against God as demonstrations of arrogance and pride, and these sinful traits are

David J. A. Clines, “Job’s God: A Surfeit of Theologies?” (paper presentation, SBL International

Meeting, Singapore, July 27, 2005), 3.

Sefaria, “Malbim on Job,” 32:1:8; Rosenberg, Job, 170.

Barton, “The Dark Side,” 122-7.

Sefaria, “Malbim on Job,” 32:1:4-5.

187

leading him toward other forms of unrighteousness (32:14; 33:12, 17-18, 29-30). Elihu offered

Job the solution of returning to holy deeds and dedicating himself to God despite his affliction.

Job should not repent to achieve prosperity because nothing is guaranteed (36:8-15; 37:14). He

repeats arguments throughout the Dialogue about God’s desire for man’s repentance, the results

of repentance, and the joys of righteousness. Yet his presentation seems to be more sincere and

compelling.

These topics extend to areas not mentioned in previous chapters that further impact his

four speeches. Several notable occurrences can be discussed based on the theological structure of

the speeches. First, the portrayal of the wicked experiencing poor health and various ailments

echoes the illness and sad state of the wicked and Job from the friends’ speeches. Although,

Elihu further explores the story of a hypothetical man. The man becomes ill (e.g., aches and

pains, cannot eat, weight loss, and protruding bones), is on the brink of death, and views his

situation in a “purgatorial fashion” (33:19-22a).

The judgment of this illness should warn and

guide the man toward repentance. The man is not alone; an angel pleads his case before God

(33:24-25). The man confesses (33:27) that he is holistically restored (e.g., becomes well,

experiences joy, and testifies to others), and Elihu states that God does all these things two or

three times, to bring back his soul from the pit” (33:29-30a).

Second, Elihu represents God as one who establishes justice and punishes the wicked.

The marked difference is the emphasis on the impartiality of God in his refusal to reflect the

Joel Kaminsky prefaces his comments, explaining that sin is present in this passage, but it does not state

that the individual is from “among the wicked.” Another important point is that not all people who are suffering

severely from a physical illness are morally deficient; Kaminsky, “Would You Impugn My Justice?” 306-7.

188

ways of the world or human beings.

The friends make God in their image. Elihu’s God is all-

powerful, “with full authority over the earth” (34:13). He is all-knowing, discerning who is rich

and poor, who is “mighty” (34:24) and meek, and who is repentant or only feigning confession.

God does not “need to consider a person” or to perform an “investigation,” for “he knows their

deeds” (34:23-25). Elihu succinctly states, “God certainly will not act wickedly, and the

Almighty will not pervert justice” (34:12).

Third, these statements raise the discussion well above Job’s culpability, seeking to

establish God’s rule and Job’s place in the divine-human relationship. Interpretations that

support only Elihu’s intentions of focusing on Job’s wrongs (34:7-8, 35-37) are insufficient,

selling short his overarching intentions to focus on what is right and the depth of his arguments.

Elihu recognizes the danger of Job’s spiritual assumptions (i.e., his condemnation of God’s

silence and making a case against God). Job’s stance that God owes him an explanation instead

implies partiality. Why should Job be able to set parameters for God’s behavior more than any

other righteous or unrighteous person? Rashi and Altschuler reject this behavior by reminding

readers that man is not in a place to instruct the Lord.

Proving the friends’ perceptions of Job’s

sinfulness and God’s culpability in punishing him for those sins is not the thrust of Elihu’s

contribution because they are wrong.

Elihu’s depiction of the angel mediator correlates to the impartiality of God’s rule, connecting to a

clarification given to the Jews in NT times. The greatest Mediator, Jesus Christ, speaks of the impartiality of God’s

rule and his ways concerning mankind. He conveys that God “causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and

sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt 5:45). Of course, this concerns enemies, but it speaks to the

idea of God’s transcendence above the affairs of men and the constancy of his rule.

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 34:31-2; Altschuler, “Metzudat David on Job,” 34:33-5; Rowley stresses the

omni-traits and infallibility of God as proof of his impartiality; See also H. H. Rowley, ed., Job, NCBC (1970, repr.,

Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 219.

189

Accusations in Arrogance

Accusations of arrogance are made when describing the godless (15:25b; 20:6, 36:9b;

40:11b-12a), but there are other accusations to consider. Job accuses the friends of treachery

(6:15), being “afraid” (6:21), and being deficient in “social and ethical value[s]” (6:25-27),

among other things (12:2; 13:4-8; 16:1-4; 19:1-3; 21:3). In arrogance, they claim to possess

sufficient experiential wisdom to advise Job. Eliphaz claims revelational wisdom of a theophanic

nature (4:12-21), which comes across as convenient and fake.

The more the friends focus on God’s character and how he interacts with humanity, the

less they say to support their cause. Eliphaz takes great liberties in laying out the state of Job’s

soul, accusing him of lacking reverence (15:4a), being unable to pray (15:4b), and “turn[ing] his

spirit against God” (15:13). Worse yet, the arrogance of Eliphaz is summed up when he says of

Job, “Your own mouth condemns you, and not I” (15:6). The more he defames Job for what Job

thinks he knows, the more Eliphaz claims to know. Bildad’s explanation of the godless man

being too dependent upon his family and wealth (i.e., worldly goods, crops, and livestock) has an

air of superiority, as all the visitors push Job toward repentance to regain what has been lost

(8:13-18). His shortest speech of supposed praise for God has a legalistic air of accusation

against Job. He asks, “How then can mankind be righteous with God” (25:4)?

Elihu is criticized externally as arrogant because of his forthrightness, but he

acknowledges straightaway why he might not be the best to speak against the friends.

He is

“young,” “shy and afraid,” and may be lacking oration skills, as opposed to the other men

(32:6b-c, 11b). He determines that he must set these perceived shortcomings aside because age

does not determine the wisdom of men (32:9), for this is determined by the spirit and wisdom of

Hoffman, A Blemished Perfection, 140.

190

God within them (32:8). He sees himself as the mouthpiece of God. and is compelled to speak

(32:18b), comparing himself to new wineskins that are about “to burst” (32:19b). He is full of

words” (32:18a) and sharing his raw thoughts brings him relief (32:20a).

Whether one takes

issue with his words or how he presented his arguments, God omits Elihu from the rebuke of the

friends.

Ibn Ezra says that the “true solution to the problem,” referring to suffering, “is to be

found in Elihu’s words.”

Contextual Synopsis

God’s sovereign rule is substantiated by explanations of his character and deeds and a

debate on what partiality he exercises toward man. The divine-human relationship is a complex

concept that challenges all the earthly characters to explore the attributes of God and his various

roles (e.g., Creator, Governor, Judge, Retributor, and Teacher). Job and his wife accept God as

the ultimate authority over their lives, as they confirm each other’s righteousness. Despite the

negative persona, Job’s wife is desperate for relief for her and her husband.

The friends offer various arguments to substantiate God’s right to punish Job by

attempting to establish his culpability. Throughout the discourse between the five men, the

friends define the human roles of the wicked, repentant, and righteous to explain God’s

responses. Their human applications are flawed, even though there are elements of biblical

Sefaria, “Malbim on Job,” 32:1:8.

This statement partially revisits the arguments on interpolation. If Elihu was not present and these were

inserted later as a literary bridge, then perhaps God does not mention him because he never existed. God’s ability to

preserve his Word leads this study to believe that if Elihu is fictional, these speeches would be clearly designated as

parabolic or anecdotal. This study accepts the possibility of original inclusion, and if not in the original version,

accepts his speeches were recorded by the original author. The increased presence of Aramaisms in Elihu’s speeches

compared to previous chapters should not be interpreted as grounds for exclusion, as these could have been changed

over time to represent changes in the “Hebrew…vernacular…of the Judean population;” Vicchio, Job, 215.

Ibid., 216.

191

truths. The ongoing search for silence, consolation, and ethical rightness leaves something to be

desired for all, especially Job, causing him to realize that God is the source of all three.

The four men fall silent after three cycles of speeches, and Elihu can no longer remain so.

He recognizes the arrogance of the men’s rebuke, ill advice, and the lack of remedy for Job’s

suffering. Contrary to their opinions, he does not view culpability as an issue in the initial

judgments. He confirms that pursuing a case against God from a position of pride presents a

spiritual danger to Job. Elihu shares that God repays a person for his work and lets things happen

in correspondence to a man’s behavior (34:11), demonstrating the Divine’s impartiality. On the

other hand, he affirms that God can be silent and illusive due to his position (37:23). Elihu wants

Job to take heart because God still “rescues the afflicted in their misery, and opens their ears in

time[s] of oppression” (36:15). There is hope for an audience with God, restoration, and a lasting

remedy for Job’s situation.

192

CHAPTER SEVEN: JOB’S ARGUMENTS

Changes in Job’s language and behavior throughout the Dialogue evidence the turmoil

and suffering in his life. These changes, caused by conditional and dispositional movements, can

confuse the interpretation of his speeches. The aftermath of incredible loss, a strained marital

relationship, and the barrage of perceived criticism from the visitors reveal how his disorderly

life is holistically affecting him. Religious beliefs and opinions about his righteousness, God’s

perceived obligations, and Job’s expectations are consistently contrasted.

Job’s responses to others are extensive, encompassing twenty chapters of arguments.

His

dialogic speech is complicated because it is not always clear to whom he speaks. He sometimes

offers rebuttals that drift into his thoughts, almost as if he is directing his comments to God

instead of his visitors. Job’s significant concerns are defending his innocence and reconciling the

Jewish tradition of retribution with the suffering world around him. His reasoning leads to

questions about whether he can take God to court and be an effective witness.

The physical, mental, and spiritual anguish resulting from these activities forces Job to

consider how he defines God’s ruling obligations and the legitimacy of God’s perceived

intentions (9:28; 10:13; 21:27; 30:23). The Lord’s justice seems ostensibly absent. Job examines

how Yahweh’s “heavy hand” has committed offenses against him and the righteous while

seemingly ignoring the unrighteous and postponing their punishment (23:2, 8–24:25, 28:23-28).

Merging his various arguments demonstrates the complexities of his thought process and justifies

his desires for an audience with Yahweh and divine consolation.

This chapter will touch on specific passages that relate to Job’s arguments, highlighting his state of mind,

beliefs, and rebuttals of false claims. Job’s speeches in the Dialogue are found in Job 3; 6–7; 9–10; 12–14; 16–17;

19; 21; 23–24; and 26. Job’s poetic monologue encompasses five chapters (27–31).

193

Movements

Tracking Job’s early movements from theocratic acknowledgments (Job 1–2) to the

following conditional and dispositional movements characterizes his state of mind and isolates

his arguments. The Prologue’s “predominant motif” is cursing, and the transition to the Dialogue

begins with him registering an official complaint (3:1-10).

He is desperate for comfort, and the

attempts at consolation by those closest to him have been wanting. Job’s search for ethical

rightness causes him to reject any consolation from his knowledge of God. He concludes that the

wisdom he possesses is insufficient. Job’s position is untenable because he “cannot forego either

his own truth or God,” posits Buber.

Job’s Conditional Movements (1:20-22; 2:10b; 3:1-26)

Two points define the conditional movements in Job’s language and behavior. At first,

Job acknowledges the positional authority of God after the disastrous judgments (1:20-22; 2:10).

A noticeable change in self-expression occurs when his body is inflicted with boils and the seven

days of silence have passed. Later, he unequivocally judges God by combining his present

conditions with his past experiences. He does not abandon his faith despite the severity of his

condition, and he uses the imagery of light and darkness to explore the termination of his

existence (3:1-26).

Acknowledgments (1:20-22; 2:10)

Job’s response to the first judgment is to acknowledge God’s sovereignty as the prime

condition sustaining his faith. He displays godliness as tremendous grief begins to sweep over

Rick D. Moore, “The Integrity of Job,” CBQ 45, no. 1 (January, 1983): 23.

Martin Buber, qtd. in Craig G. Bartholomew and Ryan P. O’Dowd, Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A

Theological Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 141; Martin Buber, qtd. in Harold Bloom,

ed. The Book of Job, MCInt (New York, NY: Chelsea House, 1988), 2.

194

him, although he cannot emotionally connect all that has transpired. From a physical position of

worship, he utters two logical statements that reflect a position of spiritual devotion (1:20-22;

2:10). He acknowledges God by bowing before him without any man-made adornment.

Exposing his nakedness is a testament to God’s provision for his earthly existence. In a sense, he

is holistically stripped bare before the only one who can physically and spiritually clothe him.

Job continues to possess a persevering, theocentric faith with the second judgment (1:7).

In response to his wife’s plea, he rhetorically asks, “Shall we actually accept good from God but

not accept adversity” (2:10b)? He does “not sin with his lips” and confesses that God is the

source of all things (2:10c). At this point, Job “does not speak” of God’s culpability or how to

measure what he does as “good…, only … that God has the power to do whatever he wants,”

surmises Chrysostom.

Job’s initial utterances and reactions confirm the spiritual environment he has cultivated

in his family life and the theocratic system that shores up his faith. He claims that God is in

control and projects the holiness to which God, the śāṭān, and his wife have attested. He is a man

of integrity (2:10a), which should please those who later comment on the passage. On the

contrary, his statements do not impress all Jewish scholars from the twelfth to the sixteenth

centuries (specifically, Rashi, Alshikh, and Malbim). They believe Job had “sin in his heart,” and

Rashi adds, “he had not yet uttered it.”

Recognizing God’s control over blessing and cursing

causes Job to delve into a deep lament that is symptomatic of changes in his dispositions (3:11-

26). His acknowledgments of faith shift dramatically to the words of a man in the full throws of

despair and pain. He moves quickly from focusing on the value of life to the value of death.

Chrysostom, Commentary on Job, 2.10c, in Simonetti and Conti, Job, 92.

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 2:10; Sefaria, “Malbim on Job,” 2:10; Alshikh, “Chelkat Mechokek on Job,”

2:10.

195

Rick Moore connects the characters’ acknowledgments of the worth of Job’s life in four

ways. The first testimony to Job’s wealth is that he had ten living children; “seven sons and three

daughters were born to him” (1:2).

Of all the things a man can accomplish, participating in

God’s ordained plan for procreation is one of great worth. Second, the śāṭān acknowledges that

humanity is driven to self-preservation, to live. He states, “All that a man has, he will give for his

life” (2:4).

Third, the wife realizes that Job surrendering his life by cursing God is valuable

enough to bring them peace (2:9). Lastly, Job’s two acknowledgments remain “consistent,”

claiming that “life should be embraced regardlessly, unconditionally” (1:21); life should be “met

with acceptance” (2:10).

The contrasts between life and death indicate how far Job’s mindset has come in one

week. Moore concludes, “Job’s lament does not represent a mere shift in attitude or fluctuation

in mood but rather a complete reversal of the narrative Job,” and this movement “is not

incidental but rather the deliberate and determinative design” of the poetical Job.

Norman Habel

agrees with Moore, giving further consideration to the literary tension between the three chapters

(1–3), with “divergent perspectives on the same reality” evidenced by patterns of “reverent”

actions in Job 1 that lead to echoes in Job 3 (Table 7.1).

Moore, “The Integrity of Job,” 24.

Ibid., 25.

Ibid.

Ibid.; See also Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job, OTL (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1985), 84.

The table contains some of Habel and Moore’s perceived patterns, with an additional column to highlight

conditional changes that are not necessarily permanent; Ibid.; Moore, “The Integrity of Job,” 25-6.

196

Table 7.1: Echoes of Joban Concepts in Job 1 and 3

Joban

Concept

Reverent Action

Echo

Correlation

The

Womb

“Acceptance” of the Womb

• “Naked I came from my

mother’s womb” (1:21a)

“Regrets” for Being Born

• “It did not shut the womb

doors” (3:10)

• “Why did I … come forth

from the womb?” (3:11)

The womb is the first residence of

the body, and it is a blessed place.

The echo reflects Job’s desire for

the womb to be his grave.

The

Tomb

“Acceptance” of the Tomb

• “And naked I shall return

there” (1:21b)

“Regrets” for Not Dying

• “There the exhausted find

rest” (3:17)

• “Small and great alike are

there” (3:19)

The word there could mean the

tomb, which is an accepted

eventuality for Job’s final

residence. He can abandon his life

because the tomb is the great

equalizer.

Divine

Actions

Job Accepts

Yahweh’s Actions

• “Yahweh gives and takes

away” (1:21c)

Job Queries

Yahweh’s Actions

• “Why does he give light to

the sufferer?” (3:20)

Acceptance of God’s right to give

and take away. The echo

expresses dissatisfaction with

what is given by God and why.

Yahweh

Blessing

• “Blessed be the name of

Yahweh” (1:21d)

Cursing

• “Job … cursed the day of

his birth (3:1)

• “May those curse it” (3:8)

Yahweh’s name is blessed in all

circumstances. The echo reflects

that cursing may come about and

be appropriate in certain

situations.

Movement Toward Cursing (3:1-10)

Job’s silent contemplation of his traumatic situation has brought him to the point of

issuing a curse (3:1). “Cursing brings to mourning,” and at the same time, “it is the intention

behind the curse that matters,” states Rebbe Nachman of Breslov (1772–1810).

Nachman

understands that cursing has negative results for the person who participates in the activity and

those affected by the curses. In reverse, a person who has suffered trauma will naturally cycle

through stages of emotions based on internal and external conditions. The resulting

discouragement and mourning can lead to curses being levied at the perceived causes.

Nachman of Breslov, “Sefar Ha-Middot, A Curse, Part I,” in The Aleph-bet Book, trans. Moshe Mykoff

(New York, NY: Breslov Research Institute, 1986), I.1, I.4, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Sefer_HaMiddot?tab=

contents.

197

Nachman’s first statement is balanced by recognizing that righteous intentions can justify

curses in their various forms (human and divine).

For Job to curse God would be blasphemy if

he had the “intention” in his heart, as a matter of Jewish tradition. R. Abba ben Joseph bar Ḥama

(AD 280–352), known as Rava, explains Jewish tradition on blasphemy, saying, “The sin of

blasphemy does not apply to speech alone, as the blasphemer’s intention is central to the

transgression; if he spoke without intention, he is not considered a blasphemer.”

The

juxtaposition between blessing and cursing demonstrates a conditional relationship between the

two, even though multiple Joban uses of bāraḵ for qālal are perplexing (1:5, 11; 2:5, 9).

Divine actions that display positive and negative results are paired and juxtaposed in the

OT.

God’s blessings and cursings are also conditional, based upon the soul’s internal state and

external circumstances that can result from the behaviors and actions of those involved. One

such combination is found in Deuteronomy, “See, I am placing before you today a blessing and a

curse: the blessing, if you listen to the commandments of the Lord your God, which I am

commanding you today; and the curse, if you do not listen” (11:26-28b). God gives the Jews “the

choice of two extremes, opposites,” advises R. Ovadiah ben Jacob Sforno (c. 1470–1550); the

blessing gives them “more than [they] need, whereas the” cursing ensures they have “less than”

their “basic needs.”

Ancient Jewish tradition puts forth the image of a divine being who acts for and against

individuals and communities compared to beliefs about pagan gods. The “punitive acts” of pagan

gods “tend to be natural calamities such as plague, drought, and famine which strike the entire

Divine and human curses pepper the pages of the OT, with some people choosing cursing as a vocation

(3:8).

The human condition is prompted to release anger and resentment as part of the healing experience, and

God is the only one who can know the person’s true intentions; Sanh. 65a:20.

Deut 23:5; 30:1, 19; 37:2; Josh 8:34; Mal 2:2.

Eliyahu Munk, trans. Hachut Hamueshulash, vol. 4, MGMultiC, annot. Eliyahu Munk (Brooklyn, NY:

Lambda Publishers, 2003), 11:26:1, Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Sforno_on_Deuteronomy?tab=contents.

198

community, religious sanctions tend at least to reinforce, if not to produce, the concept of

corporate responsibility,” explains George Mendenhall.

Still, Job is the only one in the story

that has been robbed and suffers devastating losses on every side. His arguments arise from

knowing what it means to be blessed (1:1-5) and trying to reconcile why he, as an honorable

man, has now been cursed. Including curses in conjunction with his movement toward lament

elicits clarification on the form of his curses, reasoning, and the consistent imagery in Job 3.

Cursing His Day

In the HB and LXX, the first verse of the third chapter states that Job cursed “his day.”

English translations interpret this to mean the day of his birth (i.e., NASB, NET, KJV, and RSV).

The additional references for day and night set the tone for the rest of the chapter, along with a

combination of wishes paired with degrees of darkness and light. The wishes are grammatically

introduced with a mixture of Hebrew verbs in jussive form that begin verses with words like may

(NASB; NIV), that (NIV), and let (KJV). Jussive language reveals direct and indirect commands

in 3:3-9. Job registers his complaint with a mixture of despair and anger in several verses about

the day being darkened (3:4-5) and about the conditions of the night (3:6-9). The first ten verses

inform on the types of curses issued by Job and give way to expressions of longing in the lament

portion of the chapter (3:11-26).

George E. Mendenhall, “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law,” BA 17, no. 2 (May, 1954): 27.

199

Freely-Composed Cursing

Sheldon Blank has identified Job’s curse (3:1-10) as one of three forms of biblical

cursing, placing it within the category of “curses freely composed.”

This type of curse is often

directed toward God in prayer, has an element of imprecation, and does not always mention him

by name. The curser may not expect him to enact the curse, especially if it is “impossible” or

“irreversible.”

In opposition to Blank, Wilson does not view this speech as directed toward God

and explains that Job is not expecting God to facilitate a curse.

Job mentions God and shares his

opinion but stops short of asking the Lord for the destruction of his birthday or the night he was

conceived (3:3-4). Solomon (Eccl 6:1-5) and Jeremiah (Jer 20:14-18) participate in similar

exercises. All three men combine cursing with lament, deem life as pointless, and feel compelled

to comment on unfairness in the world.

Degrees of Light and Darkness

The frequent use of the motif of light and darkness in the book of Job is a constant

complement to the poetical expression of Job’s suffering and misery in the proffered arguments.

The voracity of his anguish and anger add to his sadness and move him to contemplate disdain,

darkness, and death. In agreement with Longman, Alden mentions that Job “continues to pile up”

the synonyms, “adding in … ‘deep darkness,’ cloud,” and “blackness.”

These culminate in the

ultimate statement where he equates the curse of his birth being reflected in the “deepest

Examples of this form are found in Jeremiah (11:20; 12:3; 17:18; 18:21-23; 20:14) and Psalms (69:24-

26, 28; 58:7-9; 79:12; 83:14-18; 109:6-19). The other two forms of curses in the Bible are the “simple curse” and the

“composite curse.” Blank also expounds on biblically “related modes of human expression, like blasphemy (Job 2:9-

10) and oaths (Job 31); Sheldon H. Blank, “The Curse, Blasphemy, The Spell, and the Oath,” HUC Seventy-Fifth

Anniversary Publication (1875-1950), HUCA 23, no. 1 (1950-1951): 73; See also Johannes Hempel, “Die

israelitischen Anschauungen von Segen und Fluch in Lichte altorientalischer Parallelen,” ZDMG 79 (1925): 20-110;

Adolf Wendel, Das freie Laiengebet im vorexilischen Israel (Leipzig Germany: Eduard Pfeiffer, 1932).

Wilson, Job, 48.

Ibid., 49.

Longman, Job, 100; Alden, Job, 65.

200

shadow” (3:5 NIV), combining the Hebrew words   (ṣal) and   (māveṯ) to form the equivalent

of the “shadow of death” (Ps 23:4).

He wants the shadow, or “black gloom,” to lay claim to or

“redeem” ( ; gā'al) his day.

The older Hebrew word, gā'al, means to “pollute” or “defile” in

later Hebrew usage.

He follows this by cursing the night of his birth into oblivion, therefore erasing it from

existence (3:6). This action would not only remove the possibility of his birth but strikes the birth

of all babies born on the same day, claiming the day as “barren” (3:7). Further, he wants to

extinguish the light of the “morning stars,” “daylight,” and the “dawn,” delivering utter darkness.

These three occurrences refer to the “stages” of the night transitioning to the day (3:9).

The apex of the first ten verses of chapter three is Job’s wish to “shut the doors of [his]

mother’s womb” (3:10). Interestingly, Gesenius notes that the Syriac equivalent to gā'al in the

pual tense means to “cast away, reject,” offering another double connotation.

The imagery of

the closed doors of the womb prevents Job’s birth, but the open doors of a womb can also mean

the rejection of a birth, the casting away of a fetus when it is born ill or dead.

Conceptually, if

any of Job’s proffered scenarios were to be enacted, he would not be in this challenging

situation. He is grappling with his involvement as part of God’s existent creation. Is there a

deeper meaning to why the Divine chooses natural elements and procreation to correct perceived

wrongs?

Alden, Job, 65; GHCLOT, s.v. “ ,” 709-11.

Ibid., s.v. “ ,” 151.

Ibid.

Andersen, Job, 115; O’Connor, Job, 16.

GHCLOT, 151.

Ibid.; Robert Fyall further connects the image of the womb with the grave and the “fundamental equality

of all in death,” later mentioned in the lament (3:13-19); Robert S. Fyall, Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of

Creation and Evil in the Book of Job, vol. 12, NSBT 17, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,

2002), 122.

201

Echoes of Creation

Several scholars, like Balentine and Michael Fishbane, recognize echoes of the creation

story (Gen 1) in Job 3 and view this as a negative contribution. They claim that Job goes beyond

issuing benign curses to “a systematic reversal of God’s primordial design for life.”

Balentine

admits “the parallels are not exact,” but Longman interprets Job’s curses as “implicitly criticizing

God.”

Craig Bartholomew and Ryan O’Dowd call his cursing “provocative” and an “explosion

out of … silence that comes right up to the limit of cursing God.”

Maimonides comments on

how the Jewish sages weigh Job’s words as proof of his intended blasphemy.

Job’s intent does not rise to the level of cursing God in Job 3, and it appears that the

stronger language of later chapters influences scholars’ perceptions. These accusations are

missing from parallels to the books of Qohelet and Jeremiah. Consideration must be given to

Job’s intent, the setting and timing of the exchange, and the apparent attachment of 3:3-10 to the

following emotional lament.

Movement Toward Lament (3:11-26)

Many of the words and poetic overtones for day, night, light, dark, death, and life

continue into the next sixteen verses of chapter three. The cursing tone moves to the type of

questioning and longing often characterized by biblical laments.

Wilson explains, “Much of the

central dialogue of the book … (chs. 3–31) consists of lament and its subgenre ‘complaint to

Balentine, My Servant Job,” 114; Michael Fishbane, “Jeremiah 4:23-26 and Job 3:3-13: A Recovered

Use of the Creation Pattern,” VT 21, no. 2 (1971): 153; Longman, Job, 98; Bartholomew and O’Dowd, A

Theological Introduction, 135-7.

Balentine, 114; Longman, 98.

Bartholomew and O’Dowd, 135.

Job’s supposed blasphemy extends from cursing creation to denying the resurrection of the dead and

other “heretical thoughts” (7:9; 9:17, 24); Maimonides, The Guide, 300; b. B. Bat. 16a:11, 12, 17-18.

Wilson, Job, 51; Andersen, Job, 116.

202

God.’”

Job realizes the futility of his initial curses and moves to considering his death (3:11-19)

and the suffering of others (3:20-26). In the same manner that “trouble (3:10) and turmoil (3:17,

26)” are paralleled in the previous verses, the lament has consistent themes, too (“light,” 3:16,

20; “rest,” 3:13, 17, 26; and “death,” 3:11, 13, 15, 21-22).

Lamenting Life and Longing for Death

Job’s miserable situation prompts movements between various emotions, shifting him

from anger to longing, from what he knows and understands to questioning his knowledge. He

questions why he did not die (3:11), why his nascent experience took the ordinary course

(3:12a), and why he was nourished (3:12b). He believes it would have been better to be

miscarried in secret, perishing in the muted darkness of the womb (3:16), than being born and

seeing the physical light of life. Gesenius explains that while  ('ôr) refers to various levels of

light during the early part of the day or flashes from lightning, “metaphorically … light furnishes

an image of good fortune” and “prosperity.”

Job argues that dying before birth is favorable

because it offers the advantages of being counted among the dead and never experiencing hope,

only to end up defeated (3:3, 16).

Job directs attention to his death by using the word “there” as a final location for his soul

(3:17, 19). Habel distinguishes this reference as an echo of the word tomb from chapter one.

Fred Pearson believes this could refer to the place of the dead in Hebrew tradition called Sheol

and does not refer to the actual grave. He defines Sheol as the “state or abode of the dead” where

they “are gathered to their tribes and families.”

This is not a place of “consciousness,” but a

Wilson, Job, 258.

GHCLOT, s.v. “,” 23.

Habel, Job, 84.

Fred B. Pearson, “Sheol and Hades in Old and New Testament,” RevExp 35, no. 3 (July, 1938): 304.

203

“land of forgetfulness” where the “dead know not anything” (Ps 88:10-12; Eccl 9:5).

At the

same token, Job repeats themes from chapter three in chapter ten by drawing a correlation to

ṣalmāveṯ (3:5; 10:21-22), including that Sheol is “a land of darkness” and “utter gloom like

darkness itself ” (10:21). R. Yoḥanan relates this location as a restful place where the “wicked

cease from enraging the Holy One” with their evil acts, and the righteous occupants no longer

must “combat their impulse to evil” (Gen. Rab. 9:5).

Lamenting Death and Longing for Rest

Job voices something that his wife does not verbalize. They long for numbness, a respite

from the weariness of their plight. His knowledge of the place of death increases his longing for

it, and he surmises that the ultimate benefit would be rest (3:13, 17, 26). In his movement from

death to rest, he makes a shortlist of those who have found it (3:10-17).

Job feels enslaved by

his suffering, and if he could join the “small and the great” in Sheol, he would be free from his

anguish. His desire represents a false hope (3:19) that cannot be realized, no more than removing

his birthday from history.

In the latter part of the chapter, Job addresses the idea of light (i.e., hope) being given

(3:20-23) when his experiences are filled with confusion, separation, and abiding grief. He sees

hope as a disrupter of rest because injecting hope confronts the burdens and bitterness within

him, requires him to feel something, and instigates his search for relief through knowledge (3:21,

23). Job is questioning everything he thought he knew about God and his divine intentions. He

Pearson, “Sheol,” 305-6.

Hayim Nahman Bialik and Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky, eds., The Book of Legends Sefer Ha-Aggadah:

Legends from the Talmud and Midrash, trans. William G. Braude (New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1992), 548.

Examples of those who have escaped turmoil are (1) the kings and leaders who possessed much on earth

and built tombs for themselves; (2) infants who died never experiencing life and hope; (3) the wicked who no longer

transgress; and (4) the prisoners who no longer labor in vain (3:14-17).

204

asks why a man should be given hope but needs clarification on being unable to discern the path

to obtain it (3:22).

He ponders why God has disconnected from him, like a man “shut off” (3:23), revealing

feelings of separation and partially confirming his fears. Rashi puts forth that all Job’s

remarkable deeds were “hidden” from God; “he did not look at them.”

The śāṭān states that

God put a “fence around him” (1:9) with his blessings and goodness, and yet Job sees himself

now as being “hedged” in and constrained by his present suffering and circumstances.

It is

better that a “happy” man “die before his wheel turns” and bad things happen, surmises Alshikh

on 3:25.

Job’s short revelation in this verse reveals that he has experienced fear and

contemplates whether he has brought all of this on himself.

He mostly yearns for relief from the

turmoil that has enveloped life and the constant questioning; he believes death will give him the

rest he seeks and an end to his suffering.

Job’s Dispositional Movements

Job’s dispositional movements are associated with his moral character, temperament, and

perceived legal standing. The text communicates that Job exhibits a godly disposition of

integrity, which governs his movements. Several scholars agree with Moore’s view that “God’s

rebuke and Job’s confession” at the end of the book “refer only to Job’s ignorance, while in

God’s verdict, Job’s moral integrity is confirmed.”

Changes in Job’s temporal dispositions

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 3:23.

Ibid.

Alshikh, “Chelkat Mechokek on Job,” 3:23-24.

Being careful not to proffer any rigid interpretations, several possibilities for Job’s fears are that (a) his

children would blaspheme God and not ask for forgiveness; (b) he would lose his wealth and position in society; (c)

God would not know of his righteousness; and (d) his death would not be peaceful.

Moore, “The Integrity of Job,” 22; See Marvin Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, 3rd ed.,

vol. 15, The Anchor Bible (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1973), 290; Édouard P. Dhorme, A Commentary on the

Book of Job, trans. Harold Knight (1967, repr., Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1984), 1xxxi, 570, 646;

Rowley, Job, 244, 266.

205

move from the perceived acceptance of the tragedies to shock and silence and then from

bewilderment, anger, and despair to cursing, lament, and demands for an audience with God.

Following the changes in his temperament makes it difficult for readers to maintain his

innocence in alignment with God’s confirmation.

The weakness of some scholarly interpretations is not admitting that Job’s spiritual

dispositions (his integrity, righteousness, and loyalty to God) are not influenced by the

movements in his temporal dispositions.

The rigid treatment of Job’s words is influenced by his

circumstances, without exploring the conditions that do not allow for his humanity. This study

recognizes that Job was not a perfect human being. Andre Lacocque claims that Job is viewed as

either “an anti-hero” or lauded for being “the hero on par with no less than Moses himself.”

Having a balanced portrait of Job is more appealing and valuable. He has become someone

others strive to emulate when thrust into untenable situations. This hero of the faith searches

among men for respectful silence, consolation, and ethical rightness. He entertains and rejects

their arguments in favor of ascertaining wisdom and consolation from God.

Rejecting Silence

After his second acknowledgment in chapter two, Job assumes a disposition of silence

and retreats within himself. The customary time for mourning the dead was “seven days and

seven nights” (Gen 50:10; 1 Sam 31:13; Sirach 22:12), explains H. H. Rowley, and “Job’s

friends mourn for him as one already dead.”

Changes in his temperament are consistent with

being in a state of shock, on top of being seriously unwell and grieving. Clines mentions the lack

Balentine, My Servant Job, 114; Fishbane, “Recovered Use,” 153; Longman, Job, 98; Bartholomew and

O’Dowd, A Theological Introduction, 135-7; Maimonides, The Guide, 301.

Lacocque draws this correlation because Job “witnessed a theophany comparable to the one” witnessed

by Moses; Andre Lacocque, “Job and Religion at its Best,” BibInt 4, no. 2 (1996): 131.

Rowley, Job, 38.

206

of theological content “about the meaning of his suffering” in chapter three (i.e., theodicy and

retribution), believing that the readers must view “the violence of his grief” and recognize this

section as the “drama” of Job’s “soul.”

Silence is a natural reaction to extreme loss and perpetuated suffering, but when Job

begins to speak, no one listens to what he has to say (13:4-6). He expects to receive words of

support and encouragement from his friends who entreat him to sit in silence (4:16; 11:3), to

listen (15:7), and to hear (15:8; 22:27; 27:9). Elihu implores Job to listen more times than the

three friends combined.

Job resolves that he will no longer sit in silence; he will be heard.

“Therefore, I will not restrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit, I will complain

in the bitterness of my soul,” he declares in 7:11.

Rejecting Consolation

The presence of family and friends in difficult times is meant to bring consolation (e.g.,

see to immediate needs and foster a sense of normalcy), and Job rejects this in favor of God’s

presence and counsel. Job deduces after Eliphaz’s first speech that he is not going to receive the

kind of treatment that should bring consolation. In 6:14-15a, Job observes, “For the despairing

man there should be kindness from his friend; so that he does not abandon the fear of the

Almighty. My brothers have acted deceitfully.” Job denounces their efforts again in the second

speech cycle, and he feels victimized instead of reassured, stating, “You smear me with lies; you

are all worthless physicians” (13:4). Their presence, faulty wisdom, and attacks against Job’s

character enhance his perception of and argument against the absence of God. His friends cannot

Clines, Job 1–20, 104.

Elihu asks Job to “listen” in eleven verses (32:10; 33:1, 31, 33; 34:2, 10, 16; 35:13; 36:12; 37:2, 14) and

to “hear” in four verses (33:1; 34:2, 16, 28). In two verses, he asks Job for his silence in combination with a listening

ear (33:31, 33).

207

accurately see the situation from Job’s point of view. Job becomes increasingly interested in

receiving divine comfort and assurance directly from God. Rowley and Vicchio mention R. H.

Strahan’s thoughts on the matter, adding, “It is the chief distinction between Job and his friends

that he desires to meet God and they do not.”

As a reminder of a previous discussion, Job goes

as far as saying that God is ultimately responsible for the failure of his family, acquaintances,

and friends at consolation, and they have abandoned him (19:13-15).

Rejecting Ethical Rightness

The traditional retribution principle is ordered by cause and effect, instilling the wisdom

that supports ethical rightness⎯do good things and good things will result; do bad things and

bad things will result.

In comparison, God and the other male characters distill their reasoning

to primordial discussions, referencing applications of “natural” and “revealed law.”

Natural law

dictates that “God as creator both instigated and preserves … order in the world,” according to

Katharine Dell, and revealed law sustains “human society and behaviour.”

Job begins to ponder

the universal oversimplification of good and bad outcomes in the world. The consecutive

disasters in the first chapter threw Job’s world into chaos and caused him to think about his legal

standing in concert with his theological and moral worldviews.

Strahan, Job Interpreted, 207; Vicchio, Job, 173.

Stefan Fischer, “How God Pays Back – Retribution Concepts in the Book of Job,” AcT 20, no. 2 (2000):

26.

Katharine J. Dell, “Does God Behave Unethically in the Book of Job?” in Ethical and Unethical in the

Old Testament: God and Humans in Dialogue, LHBOTS 528, ed. Katharine J. Dell (New York, NY: T & T Clark

International, 2010), 170.

Ibid.

The application of chaos in this sense is a state of confusion where Job’s life is encompassed by disorder

created by the judgments and the aftermath of the disasters. Other applications for God’s sovereignty are discussions

of the primordial state of the universe at creation, referring to matter that existed without shape in infinite darkness.

Mabie provides a broad discussion on the meanings and applications of chaos in biblical and extrabiblical settings

that address the natural, moral, historical-cultural, literary, and eschatological aspects of chaos and chaos theory; F.

J. Mabie, “Chaos and Death,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper

Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 107-25.

208

Job cannot reconcile the disorder unleashed by the śāṭān and suspects that whatever has

occurred met with the approval of God and was dealt by his hand (19:21; 30:21). God instituted

natural law and has revealed his moral expectations. Job has ordered his life according to these

expectations, and many of his arguments reveal this; therefore, he rejects the idea that everything

is ethically ordered and searches for a source of accountability outside of himself. This rejection

leads him to ask if God is responsible for the onslaught of chaos.

His preconceived expectations cause him to explore the ethical nature of God’s actions,

which challenges his visitors’ theological worldviews. Zophar recognizes this developing

disposition and rightly tells him that there are things he does not understand that “only God” can

reveal (11:6). He asks Job, “What can you know” (11:8b)? Eliphaz queries Job, “Do you hear the

discussions of God, and limit wisdom to yourself? What do you know that we do not know?

What do you understand that we do not” (15:8-9)? Bildad gives dire descriptions of the place and

predicament of the “man who does not know God” at all (18:21b). Arguments for Job’s

culpability present a myriad of options for interpreting the tone and aggressiveness of each

exchange. Unfortunately, the friends put Job in a difficult position as he grieves and attempts to

resolve issues “in the wake of theological reflection and moral requirements.”

Job must reject ethical rightness because he cannot reconcile why God would pass off

such judgments as moral decisions. He moves along a legalistic track until he hits moral

roadblocks when reconciling his righteous living with his possible culpability. Dell connects her

discussion of the progression of his arguments to Crenshaw’s thoughts, who believes “order

implies a goal” because, on its own, “chaos lacks movement towards some final meaningful

destination.”

Job perceives the stilted situation lacks movement toward an intellectual

Maxwell, “The Problem of God,” 178.

Crenshaw, Theodicy, 4.

209

resolution without divine intervention. He views God’s involvement and responses to his

arguments as essential, whether guilt can be assigned to him or God.

Job agonizingly expresses his desire for a proper understanding of his offenses. In chapter

ten, he asks, “Let me know why You contend with me” (10:2b). A few chapters later, he

implores, “How many are my guilty deeds and sins? Make known to me my wrongdoing and my

sin” (13:23). If he is indeed culpable, the natural movement of his reasoning concludes that God

views him as a moral enemy (13:24-27; 16:7-17; 19:7-12). Therefore, he considers whether the

judgments are retributive acts meant to punish him for his immoral behavior. The consequences

of his thinking will continue to affect his relationship with God and extend to his abstract and

concrete earthly relationships (19:13-22).

Gregory Parsons recognizes that Job’s suffering is not introduced as the central theme

from the beginning of the book because it is not the central theme of Job’s experience. God’s

“sovereign grace” and “man’s response of faith and submissive trust” are the overriding topics

that narrow the focus of Job’s “refutation” of the retribution principle by using creation and legal

motifs.

Parson views Job’s consistent questioning as a literary mechanism the author uses “as a

means of isolating and intensifying the question of the proper basis of man’s relationship with

God.”

Reducing Job’s conditional and dispositional movements to the author’s clever crafting

of a compelling story removes the essential elements that define Job’s struggle to reconcile his

suffering to how he interprets God’s sovereignty and imposed acts of retribution.

Gregory W. Parsons, “The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job,” BSac 138, no. 550 (April-June

1981): 151.

Ibid., 143.

210

Arguments of Obligation and Expectation

The expectations and obligations of God and Job are underlying themes that feed into the

nature of their divine-human relationship and God’s sovereignty. In her interpretation of Karl

Barth’s position, Susannah Ticciati posits,

God singles out Job, choosing to be God as the God of this man; and in his service of God, Job for his

part has no presupposition other than God, offering himself to God for the sake of God alone. The

material blessings lavished on Job by God and the corresponding acts of obedience offered up by Job

are for Barth the outward expression and sign of this fundamental solidarity, making it transparent.

However, this transparency is one which exists for God alone, just as the pure form of the relation

between God and the human being is seen and known by God alone.

One gathers from this reading that God is the God of all, and he desires explicitly also to be Job’s

God. In reverse, Job dedicates himself to serving God, wishing to be in a relationship with him

because God has made his intentions known. Solidarity, purported by Barth and Ticciati, is

perpetuated by a relationship strengthened to the point of God and Job being in a cooperative

fellowship. God can fully comprehend whether Job has met the full measure of divine

expectations while he fully comprehends Job’s innate fallibility.

God’s Obligations and Job’s Expectations

God is the most complete representation of goodness, and he alone can guide Job on the

obligations of faithfulness and obedience. Job’s arguments declare that he has satisfied God’s

expectations. Indeed, God observes Job’s righteousness, and the śāṭān does not question it; he

questions God’s expectations and Job’s obligations. Can God expect Job to continue in

righteousness without overwhelmingly blessing him, and will Job feel obligated to remain true

without them? In essence, is Job’s piety genuine?

Susannah Ticciati, Job and the Disruption of Identity: Reading Beyond Barth (London, England: T&T

Clark International, 2005), 19.

211

The question of Job’s piety is central to Ticciati and Matitiahu Tsevat’s studies. For

Ticciati, it is rooted in the question of the śāṭān, “Does Job fear God for nothing” (1:9)? Tsevat

relays, “Job is the pious man, if there is one. The problem is: is there one?”

God is the best

judge of what truly represents righteousness. Thus, declaring Job as blameless in his sight is a

divine obligation based on truth; it is just to say so, and God is just. “Causality in the realm of

morality is guaranteed by God,” reveals Tsevat, “this is the meaning of the sentence ‘God is

just.’”

Therefore, God is obligated to rule because he is sovereign; Job expects him to rule

justly because of his nature.

Obligated to be a Ruler; Expected to be Just

God’s sovereignty and corresponding justice demonstrate a relationship between cause

and effect and govern his decision-making process (if man does this, then he will do that). If

indeed, he is just, how can Job take God to court, and what is the nature of Job’s juridical

relationship to the Divine? Determining the justness of God’s actions toward Job seems to

require accusations and the assignment of guilt, which lead to Job’s eventual focus on arguments

of absence and innocence.

Can Job Take God to Court?

The desire for an audience with God grows in Job’s mind with each reply to his friends’

speeches. In Job’s response to Bildad’s first speech, he entertains the idea of standing before the

Lord, questioning how well he might “answer Him, and choose” his “words before Him” (9:14).

He fears that if God spoke to him, he would be dumbfounded (9:15). He would beg for mercy if

he could talk with him (9:16). He questions how anyone could “summon” God on matters of

Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” HUCA 37 (1966): 74.

Ibid., 75.

212

power and justice and concedes differences between him and God would prevent them from

going “to court together” (9:19, 32). But what seems resolved at the end of chapter nine is far

from it. Job turns his dialogue toward God and reminds the Sovereign that he is ultimately

responsible for Job’s existence (10:8-12), for he is the ruler over all. In response to Zophar, in

combination with a general reaction to all three friends, his timidity wanes, and he declares,

“Behold now, I have prepared my case; I know that I will be vindicated” (13:18). His accusations

are dual in nature, recognizing that God’s powerful hand has moved against him and the absence

of an explanation for these actions. Does God’s “heavy hand” (23:2 LXX) define the judgments

as acts of retribution, and were they purposed to cause suffering as a means of punishment?

The Heavy Hand (23:1-2; 5)

Divine and human hands facilitate and complement many actions and sentiments in the

OT, and ambiguity exists in the interpretation of whose hand is mentioned in chapter twenty-

three.

Does the “heavy hand” belong to Job or God? The LXX states that “his hand has been

made heavy” (23:2), referring to God, as opposed to several English translations that have

interpreted  (yāḏ) to mean “my hand” (CJB, ESV, and YLT), referring to Job. Davis Hankins

disagrees with the emendation in the LXX because it breaks up the continuity from “repeated

descriptions of [Job’s] experience as an antagonism inhering within his embodied condition,”

such as (1) “my soul chooses suffocation” (7:15); (2) “my mouth will condemn me” (9:20); and

(3) “my infirmity rises up against me” (16:8).

Interpreting “my hand” as human embodiment

implies that Job’s hand has rebelled and is now an extension of God’s hand as a means of

retribution. In 1:11, the śāṭān incites God to “touch all that [Job] has” with his own “hand.”

John Goldingay, “On Reading Job 22–28,” ExpTim 124, no. 10 (2013): 482-3; Davis Hankins, “What

Does Job Want? Desire, Fear, Anxiety, and God in and Beyond Job 23,” BibInt 31, no. 3 (2022): 5-7.

Hankins, “Job 23,” 5.

213

Hankins concedes that he understands the reasoning behind the emendation and voices

concern that this “obscures” the more profound experience being conveyed by Job.

Job accepts

God’s authority and power and must explore a new facet of their perceived relationship that has

descended upon him abruptly and unfairly. Job’s perception of God as the singular spiritual and

legal authority obligates God to rule justly.

If the judgments were retributive acts, undeserved

suffering would be imposed, and God would have acted unjustly.

In chapter five, Job defines divine justice without using the word, describing how God

maintains balance in the world through actions and reactions. All the natural and unnatural

happenings initiate a just response from God’s sovereign self-directing hand. The needs of nature

are met, as he “gives rain” and “sends water on the fields” (5:10). The fools, schemers, and the

shrewd are undone through loss (5:4-5) and frustration (5:12), and the wise are captured by their

wisdom and “the cunning … thwarted” (5:13). The poor are saved and the “helpless” are given

“hope” (5:15-16). Balance is found in his discipline; pain is followed by relief and wounds heal

(5:17-18). God offers food, might, safety, security, prosperity, and old age (5:20-26). He puts

injustice to rest when it arises through natural means (i.e., drought and famine) and the acts of

men. Even though he may test and discipline man, he balances this out by giving mankind the

right to choose his ways. This implies that God has a juridical relationship with humanity borne

out of justice.

Juridical Relationship (23:3-5)

The dichotomy of God ruling justly and Job’s conclusion that the absence of justice

directly relates to his dispositions signify two aspects of their juridical relationship.

Job believes

Hankins, “Job 23,” 6.

Ticciati, Disruption of Identity, 45.

Parsons, “Structure and Purpose,” 145.

214

his past favored position, resulting in blessings from God, comes from his displayed disposition

of righteousness. If God had visited curses on others for their wicked indiscretions, this would

have confirmed his piety had disaster not befallen him. However, he knows that bad things

happen to the righteous and that the wicked sometimes seem unscathed. Despite this and all that

has transpired, he does not intend to turn his back upon the Almighty and desires an audience

with him to advocate for himself. P. Van Hecke purports, “Job’s desire for speaking with God

takes the explicit form of a call to court, which is illustrated by a relatively high incidence of

juridical terminology.”

Herbert Fingarette does not see any other course for Job’s arguments than to question the

juridical positions of all involved since they ascribe to the retribution principle and the idea of

reward for righteousness.

Consequently, the importance of the legal metaphor in this story

ranges in degrees from overwhelming acceptance of its poetic intentionality to declaring that the

book’s meaning hinges on it.

Parsons, Van Hecke, and Habel advocate for its strong presence

and associated terminology; however, Newsom disagrees with Habel specifically. Newsom does

not wish to “minimize the significance” of “legal language” but suggests that its appearance is

“much more subtle and exploratory.”

Nonetheless, Job thinks of his accusations against God in

terms of location and prediction.

Accusations on Location and by Prediction (23:3-7)

Job is not inclined to rant about God’s sovereign behavior simply because he wants to

complain and manipulate him; he expects a resolution to his theological dilemmas. Lodging his

P. Van Hecke, From Linguistics to Hermeneutics (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2011), 367.

Herbert Fingarette, “The Meaning of Law in the Book of Job,” Hastings Law Journal 29, no. 6 (January,

1978): 1592.

Ibid.; Van Hecke, Linguistics to Hermeneutics, 367-8; Habel, Job, 54-7; Cf. Carol A. Newsom, The Book

of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2003), 150.

Newsom, Moral Imaginations, 150-1; Cf. Habel, 54-7.

215

complaints and any resulting accusations in person is important because he believes there is no

better earthly representative than himself. He is driven by his expectation that God is obligated to

give him an audience but does not know where to find him (23:3). In 23:3, God’s location,

described as a “home,” is related to him being in a specific place. Job’s accusations could be

made at any fixed location. Still, he is seeking the safety of juridical formality because only on a

legal basis does he perceive his arguments to be valid.

He intends to make his accusations in person and predicts how God will receive and

respond to his arguments. He expects God to be receptive and respond in a way that Job will

understand (23:5). He momentarily questions whether God would hold back or come at him with

the “greatness of His power” (23:6). His initial confident predictions about the effectiveness of

his accusations wane with the realization that God’s location alludes him. He concedes that those

who are part of the heavenly court know God’s location and predicts that they would take up his

cause, relaying, “There the upright would argue with Him; and I would be free of my Judge

forever” (23:7).

This is not a literal statement in that Job wants to be free of God’s presence, but he wants

to be free from the consequences of God’s decisions as a retributive judge. God’s judgments are

somewhat divorced from his divine personage as he exercises his will and ways. Job has not

found solidarity among his family, friends, and acquaintances in his physical position. He

expects that they do not fully acknowledge his righteousness, but surely the upright of heaven,

and eventually God, will be able to discern his spiritual position differently.

Arguments Against God’s Absence (23:8-12)

In Job’s mind, God is obligated to be physically present, and he distressingly speaks from

this disappointed expectation. Job vocalizes his anguish, “Behold, I go forward but He is not

216

there, and backward, but I cannot perceive Him; when He acts on the left, I cannot see him; He

turns to the right, but I cannot see Him” (23:8-9). Hankins points out, “The darkness that Job

encounters is not a nothingness that indicates God’s absence, but rather bears the divine presence

that defaces Job and issues in his affective experience of anxiety.”

In fact, Hankins sees Job’s

arguments as the result of intense anxiety over his innocence and God’s absence. This prevents

his response from being from a position of reverent fear of God as the ruler.

Perhaps Job’s

perceived insolence enhances the perceptions of Rashi, Malbim, Maimonides, and Hankins, who

attest that Job’s boldness and constant questioning of God’s culpability are sinful. He wants to

know who is at fault for the injustices in the world since both the righteous and the wicked are

affected.

Whose Fault is it (23:13–24:25)?

The fingers of fault are pointed at Job by his friends and Elihu. He sits as the accused

sinner and a father of sinners (i.e., his children); he argues from a place of righteous indignation.

He emotionally and intellectually considers his position, God’s knowledge, and his destiny.

Injustice reigns as he lays out his arguments. The rule of God should perpetuate justice for all

humanity, and mankind should respond properly (i.e., worship, prayer, and holy living).

In response to Eliphaz’s third speech, Job accepts that God tests the righteous, contrary to

the other characters in the story, who cannot see beyond causality. Job’s testimony clearly states

that when he has been tested, his actions have been pure, like “gold” (23:10). Missteps have not

occurred because he has kept to the divine “path” before him (23:11) and has “not failed” God’s

Hankins, “Job 23,” 3.

Ibid., 1.

Difficult circumstances and suffering are no respecters of persons; therefore, man must spiritually rise

above circumstances and maintain his righteousness through his participation in God’s salvific cause. God will

ultimately rid the world of evil and suffering through holistic restoration.

217

commands (23:12). He hyperbolizes that he has “treasured” God’s “words … more than …

food” (23:12).

Malbim paints a different picture of Job, believing that worship and blessings are linked

to reward. He claims that Job’s worship has not been sincere “for the sake of God alone,” but he

“had … other considerations in mind, such as the hope of reward and fear of punishment.”

Job

finds fault with God for his circumstances and determines that God is different from man. He can

do “whatever his soul desires” and manage a multitude of destinies, including Job’s (23:14). Job

feels “faint” of heart and “terrified” when thinking about his destiny (24:16) and reassures

himself that he is “not destroyed” (24:17).

While the NASB uses the phrase “many such destinies” with future implications, it stands

to reason that Job is contemplating that all the destinies of man are within God’s control based

on Job’s knowledge of the past (23:14; 24:1).

In chapter twenty-one, he recounts his unreserved

view of his situation compared to the wicked. In chapter twenty-four, he outlines offenses against

the righteous (24:13-17) and the lack of justice concerning the unrighteous (24:18-24).

Offenses Against the Righteous (24:2-12)

In 24:2-12, Job contemplates the acts of the unrighteous upon history, property, and those

from underrepresented groups within society (e.g., orphans, widows, the poor, and the wounded),

who are part of the affected righteous. If God acts only in response to these situations and

measures his retribution in kind, Job cannot fathom this as just. He ponders the disadvantaged

who did not earn their lot in life. He faults God for ignoring the “offensiveness” of these

situations (24:12). Job has seen these injustices coinciding with times of extreme blessings in his

Malbim suggests two related scriptures about suffering and testing to provide clarity for his point (Deut

8:16; Ps 105:19); Sefaria, “Malbim on Job,” 23:1, 6.

Hankins, “Job 23,” 4.

218

own life. He has done what he can to rectify these situations by providing care and extending

comfort (29:7-25).

An Offense Against the Unrighteous (24:13-17)

Job transitions to the unrighteous, describing those who would “rebel against the light”

(24:13). In this passage, Job characterizes them as murderers, thieves, and adulterers⎯the likes

of whom are exalted for a time (24:14-15).

They make a profit, are fed and housed, and the day

and night are of no distinction (23:14-17). This is reminiscent of his previous observations where

he questions why the wicked are allowed continued existence, to procreate, and to live without

fear of punishment from God (21:7-9a). The unrighteous and their children prosper

generationally without regard for God’s ways, and their prosperity alleviates any need for God,

even on their deathbed (21:13, 15-16). The diatribe of wrongs committed against humanity bears

witness to a lack of godly intervention against the wicked and in favor of the virtuous affected by

their heinous acts. Where is the retribution and suffering that should be imposed on such people?

Is this not an offense against the unrighteous, for should they not be judged (24:18-25)?

Obligated to be a Judge; Expected to be a Witness

Job 24 illustrates that Job and God are in positions to form judgments according to God’s

obligation to rule and Job’s previously defined expectations. Additionally, God’s role as the

sovereign king obligates him to judge and evaluate his subjects justly. Job feels he has been

unfairly targeted, and his call to court has placed him in the witness box. He rejects his skewed

Job also uses other common nouns to name the unrighteous, such as “the schemer” (5:5), “the shrewd”

(5:12), “the wise” (5:13), “the cunning” (5:13), “the guiltless” (9:22), “the godless” (20:5), “the wicked” (21:7), and

“tyrants” (27:13b).

219

sense of ethical rightness but fears this diminishes his legal standing before the Almighty. He

suspects God’s testimony as a witness is more beneficial to his cause.

The sense is that Job wants witnesses to help plead his case, whether human or divine, to

repudiate the disasters and proclaim his innocence. He rhetorically asks someone to stand up and

dispute his claims about the wicked and, by extension, his position against retribution theology

(24:25). He despairs at not having any earthly witnesses (10:17). His unsuccessful appeals for

heavenly witnesses (16:19; 24:25) have been met with scholarly disagreement over whether

these witnesses would be for Job or against God. Ken Brown believes that so much is “directly

contingent on the role Job attributes to his witness[es],” and some studies assume that witnesses

would only “vouch … or intercede for him” (Dhorme and Habel).

The other characters are cast

in the roles of witnesses for God (10:17). Brown quotes Edgar Kellenberger’s assertion that “an

 [a witness] has the obligation to confirm what [Job] has seen” and “becomes an advocate for

the innocent or an accuser of the guilty.”

The injustice of his circumstances is so evident that it

would seem easy for anyone to understand the necessity of God’s presence as both a judge and a

witness in his case.

Arguments for Job’s Innocence (27–31)

Job contends with his earthly accusers throughout the speech cycles. They employ God’s

roles as a Judge and Retributor to affirm Job’s guilt and justify the disasters. His friends expect

him to accept their arguments and eventually acquiesce. Job does not and challenges their

Ken Brown, “How to Charge God with Murder: The Role of the ‘Witness in Heaven’ in Job 16,” CBQ

81, no. 1 (January, 2019): 18; See also Dhorme, Job, 239; Habel, Job, 275.

Kellenberger states “ein  [witness] hat die Pflicht, das von ihm Gesehene zu bestätigen. Er wird

dadurch, je nach Umständen, zum Anwalt des Unschuldigen oder zum Ankläger des Schuldigen;” Edgar

Kellenberger, “Gottes Doppelrolle in Ijob 16,” Bib 90, no. 2 (2009): 229; Brown translates “Pflicht” as obligation

instead of duty. The Hebrew word,  ('ēḏ), is a contracted form of   ('ûḏ), with common meanings for noun and

verb tenses (a witness or to bear witness/to cause someone to testify); Brown, “Witness in Heaven,” 18; GHCLOT,

s.v. “,” 607.

220

thinking, continually conducting his one-sided defense. Job 27–31, also known as Job’s

monologue, consolidates many of his previous points. In Job 27, he begins by swearing an oath

(27:2-6a), declaring,

As God lives, who has taken away my right [my justice], and the Almighty, who has embittered my

soul! For as long as life is in me, and the breath of God is in my nostrils, my lips certainly will not

speak unjustly, nor will my tongue mutter deceit. Far be it from me that I should declare you right;

until I die, I will not give up my integrity. I have kept hold of my righteousness and will not let it go.

He has hardened his resolve to proceed with a legal proceeding in which he will lay out his final

arguments for innocence. This results in Elihu’s firm and unabashed rebuke of Job’s words and

behavior (32–37) and an audience with God (38-42).

The Whole Truth (27)

From the pile of ashes, Job administrates the mock proceeding that begins with his

resolution to tell the whole truth (27:2-6), described by Habel as Job’s “public oath against

perjury.”

Oaths, such as these, were meant to convey that “the speaker is speaking the truth …

to identify the guilty or to determine the guilt of a suspect,” and were “incorporated into religious

or judicial practice.”

Job again acknowledges God’s sovereign authority and position (27:7-12)

by making him this promise, combined with a conditional curse for any misrepresentation of his

innocence (27:13-22). If Job is less than honest, then he is likened to the “godless” (27:8) and a

“wicked person” (27:13) and would suffer the loss of everything considered valuable in earthly

terms (27:13-22). Job is more resolute than ever in proving his innocence by proving God’s

sovereignty. God rules as a just judge even though Job lacks the wisdom to understand why the

Divine tested his righteousness. Job defines and declares his innocence with descriptive images

(28–30), ending with a final oath (31).

Habel, Job, 404.

Blank, “The Curse,” 88-9.

221

Ode to Wisdom (28)

Dhorme asserts that chapter twenty-eight was later added to this work, although Habel

specifies the chapter was written by the same poet who authored the book.

Others think it was

written as an authorial commentary to transition to Job’s monologue (27–31; Jean Lévêque, John

Sawyer) and meant to serve as a foundation for Yahweh’s speeches (Andersen), considering that

Elihu’s speeches may also be later additions.

Rowley argues that this chapter is an adequate

conclusion, which makes the Yahweh speeches unnecessary.

This chapter conveys imagery that begins with the blessings that result from human

skills, like mining practices that yield hidden treasures (28:1-11), to highlight man’s deficit in

true wisdom (28:12-28). Habel defines the “motifs” as “the relative capacity of humans and God

to discover the precious; and the inferior value of precious earthly items compared with the

priceless worth of Wisdom.”

The earthly items considered precious are found through mining

and smelting (e.g., silver, gold, rocks like sapphire, onyx, glass, and topaz). In contrast, God sees

“anything precious … and brings to light what is hidden” (28:10-11). The value of true wisdom

is far greater than earthly treasures, is not of earthly origin, and is not easily found or understood

(28:13). “He argues that God has designed nature such that man can discover everything there is

to know except for the wisdom needed to comprehend individual fate and fortune,” expounds

Malbim.

The Joban author conveys that only God can reveal and understand true wisdom,

imparting it to man only through respect for his sovereign position (28:23, 27-28).

Dhorme, Job, 1i; Habel, Job, 391.

Habel, 391-2; Jean Lévêque, Job et son Dieu: Essai d’Exégèse et de Théologie Biblique, EtB (Paris,

France: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1970), 600; John F. A. Sawyer, “The Authorship and Structure of the Book of Job,” in

StudBib 1978: Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes, JSOTSup 11, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone (Sheffield,

England: JSOT Press, 1979), 255; Andersen, Job, 235-6.

Rowley, Job, 179.

Habel, 393.

Sefaria, “Malbim on Job,” 28:1.

222

Imagery of an Honorable Man (29-31)

The second portion of Job’s defense concludes he has lived a life of honor by

contemplating the past. Crenshaw comments, “Honor is a major concern in the Job narrative,

both for Job, who is surrounded by charges of base misconduct, and of the deity, whose

judgment has been called into question.”

In a sense, Job defends God’s honor by recognizing

divine involvement in daily life; he does not see God as an aloof being but an engaged sovereign.

God places Job in a position of honor in his home and community, elevating him to a leadership

position. Job believes it is within God’s purview to give and take away (1:21). In line with

Barton, Alden views Job 29 as a recognition of God’s giving acts; God has given to Job, and in

response, Job has given of himself.

As a result, he “enjoyed” the “esteem” of others and was

active in “ministries of charity among the needy.”

In His Home (29:1-6)

Job commemorates the good things about his home life that resulted from God’s

sovereign care and provision. Homage is given to God’s acts, though the verbs are in past tense,

reinforcing that Job feels abandoned. He longs to return to the simpler days of his youth (29:4)

when his home was full of children (29:5), his days were ones of prosperity (29:6), and he felt

protected (29:4).

Alden points out that this is part of the repeating “wish formula … seen before

James L. Crenshaw, Defending God: Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil (New York, NY: Oxford

University Press, 2005), 66-7.

Alden, Job, 262.

Ibid.

In 29:4, the NASB uses the term sôd, which means a close friendship or “intimate fellowship.” Although,

the NASB reads, “when the protection of God was over my tent.” Longman explains that some English translations

“emend sôd for sôk,” which means “protection.” Hebraic phrases used in 29:2-5 to communicate God’s presence

and care include:      ('ĕlôha yišmǝrēnî, meaning “God watched over me”);    (bǝhillô nērô, meaning

“when shone his lamp”);        (bǝ'ôḏ šaday 'immāḏî, meaning “the Almighty was yet with me”);   

(birḥōṣ hălîḵay, meaning “were bathed my steps”); and  (vǝṣûr yāṣûq, meaning “and the rock poured out”);

Longman, Job, 335.

223

(6:8; 11:5; 14:13; 19:23), Job yearned for the bliss of yesteryear.”

His close relationship with

God and his righteousness before God made for a good home life, but this situation has torn apart

the constructs of what he viewed as home. Home was a combination of his family and his work.

Figure 7.1: “Seat of Judgement” located in Tel Dan, Israel (c. 870-750 BC) has a platform with

two steps and a stone ledge for additional seating to the right of the platform. Used by Permission.

In His Community and Through His Leadership (29:7-31)

Job was acutely aware of his position within the community and his responsibility to ease

the burdens of others. His standing was affirmed as he moved about in the city and countryside,

with both young and old recognizing his authority and wisdom. He mentions that the young men

avoided him (29:8), and the “old men arose and stood” (29:8) when he entered and “took” his

“seat in the public square” (29:7). Altschuler expounds that Job would go to the gate “near the

city to sit in the seat of the elders.”

Likened to the seat of judgment found at Tel Dan (c.

Alden, Job, 262.

Altschuler, “Metzudat David on Job,” 29:7; Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 29:7.

224

800–750 BC), at the base of Mount Hermon in Israel, Job was seated as a judge (29:7), and the

other elders would have been seated nearby (Figure 7.1).

The practice in Job and revealed at

Tel Dan was common to Jewish tradition. Eli (1165–1067 BC), the priest and judge in Shiloh,

and King David (r. 1090–970 BC), were reported to have sat at the city gate of Jerusalem (1 Sam

4:18; 19:8). Other references to this practice can be found in the OT (Josh 20:4; 2 Kgs 23:8; Ps

69:12; Prov 31:23; Jer 1:15; Lam 5:14).

Job’s righteousness was faith in action and a witness of his honorable intentions, not just

a cloak to be worn in vainglorious fashion (29:14). Over time, he became well-respected and

attained a position of power. As an honorable community and spiritual leader (29:18-25), he

describes the justice he enacted and the tangible results of his authority and position in society,

such as: “saving the poor,” helping the orphan, instilling joy in the “widow’s heart,” breaking the

wicked’s jaws, rescuing their victims, and comforting the mourners (29:12-13, 17, 25).

Poetically, he exchanges his leadership position for metaphorical and, in some cases,

metonymical descriptions of becoming eyes for the blind, feet for the lame, and father to the poor

(29:15-16).

These comments are not to be received as boasting; they are remembrances of his

righteous deeds and communicate how far he has fallen.

The judgment seat found at Tel Dan has an elevated platform that was reserved for the designated

spiritual authority (i.e., king and judge), with stone seats for the elders to the right. There are four carved post

holders at the base of the platform that likely supported a canopy for shade; Editors of the Madain Project, “Seat of

Judgement (Tel Dan),” Madain Project, accessed March 7, 2024, https://madainproject.com/seat_of_judgement_

%28tel_dan%29.

Metonymy is a figure of speech that refers to something by a name that is associated with another thing

or idea. In this case, the type of metonymy used here is synecdoche. In this passage, Job is substituting his position

for what is needed most by those who have been affected by his righteous acts and leadership.

Andersen, Job, 243-4, 246.

225

Imagery of His Fall and Innocence (30)

In chapter thirty, Job shifts from his pre-disaster position of influence to the humiliation

he has encountered since he became an object of scorn. He was respected and felt a real sense of

belonging, and now he finds himself an object of contempt, an outcast (30:9b). The younger

generations that had kept their words and behaviors in check have lost their inhibitions. They

mock him and laugh at him without any personal regard (30:1). His perception is that he is an

object of loathing and spat upon (30:10). He vividly equates his oppressors and mockers as being

unrestrained (30:13c) as a storm that rolls in, a powerful wind, and the movement of a cloud

(30:14-15). These images profoundly describe the effects of his fall and suffering on his path,

prosperity, dignity, and soul (30:13a, 15-16). A series of similes that relate to his physical

circumstances follow (30:16-27), using common metaphors and motifs reminiscent of earlier

chapters (i.e., day and night, dust and ashes, death, and light and darkness). Interspersed are other

examples of cursing oaths, where either Job (30:9-10) or God (30:17-22) are perceived as

guilty.

There is a definite shift between expectations and realizations resulting from his current

predicament.

Job’s final stand is to confirm once and for all that he is a man of integrity, an innocent

man, even though he only alludes to such statements (30:6b, 30). In reverse fashion, the last

chapter of his monologue declares his public and private integrity. The bulk of the passage

summarizes the types of sins he could be guilty of that would warrant God’s judgments and

retribution (e.g., lust, theft, deception, injustice toward servants, failure to take care of

underrepresented groups in society, greed, and worship of the sun and moon). He echoes his

desire to be heard (30:35), to receive divine words of accusation, and to obtain confirmation of

Blank, “The Curse,” 91.

226

God’s just governance (30:4, 14, 35). After this outpouring of possible sinful scenarios that

seemingly should require divine retribution, Job falls silent (30:40).

Contextual Synopsis

The Dialogue is a complex convergence of how Job’s thoughts proceed from the direct

aftermath of the judgments to his responses to other earthly characters in the book. The

progression of his arguments begins with acknowledging the theocratic position of God and

showcasing his allegiance to God’s sovereign governance. Intellectual and emotional movements

reveal that his physical, mental, and spiritual states are conditional and dispositional.

Conditionally, he reacts to his physical and mental states by cursing his birth, lamenting his

current life, and longing for death. The movements within his holistic disposition cause him to

declare a series of rejections. Job rejects silence by openly questioning his and God’s actions.

His overwhelming response is to seek God amid the chaos, hoping that answers will bring order

and consolation. His rejection of human consolation is painful as he realizes its inadequacy.

Finally, he rejects ethical rightness as a necessary step to reconciling his conditional and

dispositional movements while presenting his arguments. He argues that bad things happen to

good people and good things happen to bad people, deducting that acts of retribution are not

distributed evenly or motivated by justice. He is obligated by his own life experience to argue

against the ancient view of retribution by declaring that God is sovereign and that it is God’s

right to give and take away. Man must trust in God’s ruling authority and receive blessings and

cursings as if these come from the hand of God.

The theological intersection between the concepts of theocracy and retribution drives his

consideration of who is at fault for his suffering, thus causing him to explore God’s obligations

as a sovereign ruler and a judge. The ancient views dictate that Job’s suffering is the result of

227

evil actions and his blasphemous response to the judgments in Job 1–2. He expects God to rule

justly, but how can he reconcile retribution theology with the disasters that have befallen his

family if God is absent from the conversation? How can he attest to the divine presence of God if

the Lord does not bestow on him divine consolation, give him an audience, and serve as a

witness to declare him innocent? Exploring their juridical relationship leads him to consider his

culpability further. Job’s introspection and his external examination of how he has exercised his

integrity in public and private settings confirm his innocence as he waits for an audience with

God.

228

CHAPTER EIGHT: GOD’S ARGUMENTS (38–41)

Job’s initial acknowledgments and prior arguments present God as having a physical

hand in the world, influencing the moral and spiritual necessity of the Divine’s existence and his

rule. God’s effective use of the theophany and the incorporation of the Classical Arguments fall

under the shadow of compounding revelations about his sovereignty.

The poetic imagery,

descriptive words, and the multi-layered meanings within the text encompass all that burst forth

from the whirlwind.

God makes four arguments for his sovereignty and presents evidence that constructs a

symphony of natural, supernatural, and unnatural elements that underscore the immensity of his

regal responsibilities. Job is convinced that an active divine-human relationship exists and that

the other characters have misjudged its parameters to substantiate their views on divine

retribution and suffering. God seeks to broaden the scope of Job’s knowledge and strengthen his

faith by confirming Job’s place within the universe and their relationship. The paralleled

prophetic and eschatological impact of Job’s present and the Jews’ future reinforces the multi-

functional context of God’s authority, wisdom, and power.

The Effective Use of Theophany

Many theophanic and supernatural manifestations in divine and earthly settings exist in

the Bible and extrabiblical Jewish literature. Nature, with its entities and processes, often

Several theological arguments for the existence of God and his sovereignty are employed in Job 38–41,

such as the Ontological, Cosmological, Moral, and Teleological Arguments. The latter theological classifications are

viewed as being apologetic in nature and used to argue for the existence of God. However, they are significant to

explaining how God substantiates his sovereignty in his presented arguments and descriptions of his engagement

with creation. Additionally, the visitors’ arguments and resulting scholarly discussions dictate a close association

with the theophany and proofs of God’s existence in concert with other ancient views. Collectively, the purpose of

this chapter is not to delve into each one as a theological exercise; however, the characterizations of said arguments

are grounded in the Scriptures and speak to God’s nature; Wiley and Culbertson, Introduction, 78-83.

229

accompanies divine theophanies on earth and involves all realms that fall under God’s rule.

Distinctly, theophanies in the Bible have visible and/or audible elements and may occur in dream

sequences. Yahwistic appearances may be singular in representation, involve two or more

persons of the Trinity, and include or depict other representations of divine beings and terrestrial

forms through supernatural means.

Biblical theophanies frequently coincide with storms (Exod

19; 1 Sam 12:18; 1 Kgs 18:37-39; Ezek 1:4; Nah 1:3; Zech 9:14). Natural accompaniments to

God’s theophanic presence are clouds, smoke, dust, fire, earthquakes, thunder, and lightning.

“Special moments of divine disclosure,” when associated with God’s appearances and “judgment

settings, … evoke dread and fear in those who dare to contend with the almighty,” explains

Balentine (Judg 5:4-5; Nah 1:3-6; Hab 3:5-12).

The recounting of Joban theophanies is more prevalent and diverse in the T. Job and

includes dialogue between Satan and Job (T. Job 6:23-30), preceded by two theophanies. One

theophany is with an archangel, who prophesies to Job about a time of sickness and persecution

to come (T. Job 1:11-26), and the other is between Job’s servant and Satan, who is called the

Seducer and the Evil One (T. Job 1:11; 2:4-17). In chapter ten, God appears to Job and his four

visitors in the wind and a cloud (T. Job 10:8-13).

Vern S. Poythress, Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018),

19-22.

Appendix C is a sampling of occurrences that highlight the biblical diversity of theophanic

representations.

Of special note, the Prologue’s descriptions of the “the fire of God” falling from Heaven (1:16) and the

“great wind” from the wilderness (1:19) are excluded from being theophanic occurrences. Attributing the fire and

wind to God are euphemisms to explain catastrophic events, akin to classifying hurricanes, tsunamis, and massive

earthquakes as acts of God. The text does not attribute the disasters being directed by God or the śāṭān while they

unfold. The natural happenings and sinful actions of the Sabeans and Chaldeans are within the natural limits of

God’s bestowed freedom of choice.

Balentine, My Servant Job, 180; Three prominent examples of biblical theophanies, likened to Job’s, are

those of Moses (Exod 3:1–4:17), Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11, 12), and Isaiah (Isa 6:1-3). The Joban account mentions that

God spoke from a whirlwind (38:1). This is akin to Elijah’s experience, as he was taken up into heaven at the

appearance of a whirlwind (2 Kgs 2:11-12); Poythress’ interpretation is that fire and storms were meant to be

representations of God’s presence in some instances; therefore, these also qualify as theophanies; Poythress,

Theophany, 221, 235, 240; Vicchio, Job, 258.

230

The OT Joban text foreshadows the coming theophanic and storm-filled experience

(5:10; 12:13; 26:1-4; 36:27–37:23). This theophany is indicative of “other nature hymns (Pss

18:7-15; 19:1-6; 29:3-9; 68:7-9)” that define God’s control over the creation and the use of

nature to manifest his presence.

The earthly characters’ expectations of God’s asserted presence

and theophanic activities serve as prooftexts of God’s rule over all realms. These are expanded

from Alden’s identified examples and correspond with arguments as follows:

• Job’s limited perceptions of the depth, height, and width of God’s boundless

dominion exhibit no restraints upon God’s command and control, which God

significantly elaborates on in his speeches (Bildad, 25:2; Zophar, 11:7-10).

• God’s performance of “wonders cannot be fathomed and miracles…cannot be

counted” (Eliphaz, 5:9). The wonders are related to a unilateral abundance of rain.

Eliphaz follows this with an outline of how the Almighty rules specifically over

wicked and righteous actions. No matter the disposition, whether related to

interventions through nature or deeds of justice, God’s appearances and subsequent

actions are in accordance with his authority, wisdom, and power.

• God can make himself unequally known by commanding all the storm-related

elements, and the above and below will be affected (Elihu, 36:22-37:23). These are

equated to his physical attributes, actions, and dispositions. Thunder and lightning

(26:29b-30, 32-33) equate to and accompany his voice (37:2-5). The clouds and

precipitation (36:27-29) equate to his incomprehensible actions of unleashing snow

and rainstorms from the south and the north upon the below (37:5a-6, 9-11a). The

livestock are concerned about what is happening (36:33b). Their imbued instincts

Alden, Job, 324.

231

cause them to move to shelter and remain until the storm has passed (37:8). Elihu

addressed these topics before the theophany for Job’s sake. Still, they serve as an

introduction to the manifestation of God in the storm.

The Effective Use of the Classical Arguments

The Bible theologically portrays God’s existence and his rule using the acknowledgments

mentioned earlier, the Classical Arguments of Christianity.

Van Wart states, “What is true of the

Bible is true of reality more broadly. God is the author of both Scripture and the created order

(and its narrative), after all, and so evidently both have a significance proper to and yet also

beyond themselves.”

These acknowledgments are found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures since

they are rooted in Judaism, and their Joban representations culminate in God’s speeches.

Ontological Argument

The origin of the word “ontological” derives from the Greek words ον (on, meaning

“being”) and λόγος (lógos, meaning an account, story, or reason).

Referred to as “the science of

existence,” this concept is featured in the writings of Aristotle, Augustine, and Plato.

One of

the earliest and most developed ontological arguments for God’s existence originates with Saint

Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109), who was a Benedictine monk in Italy. His premise is that

Alden, Job, 81; The observer placed himself in the position of a prophet to draw Job’s attention to his

possibly dangerous behavior should he continue his accusations against God. Even though unintentional, Eliphaz’s

theophanic presentation could draw attention to his own behavior as a false prophet (Deut 18:20, 22). Job’s

presumed culpability includes charges of blasphemy. Blank explains that Job 2:9 is the only real representation of

the “possibility of a curse directed against God,” but this and other possibilities do not contain a known and accepted

biblical “curse formula;” Blank, “The Curse,” 83.

Wiley and Culbertson, Introduction, 78-83.

Van Wart, “Multiple Senses,” 36.

Wiley and Culbertson, 80.

Ibid.; See Thomas Taylor, trans., The Metaphysics of Aristotle (London, England: Davis, Wilks, and

Taylor, 1801), 278-97; Augustine of Hippo, On Free Choice of the Will, trans. Thomas Williams (Indianapolis, IN:

Hackett Publishing Company, 1993), 63; R. Jowett, The Republic of Plato: Translated into English with

Introduction, Analysis, Marginal Analysis and Index, 3rd ed. (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1888), xcvii-iii.

232

God exists because man can “conceive” a being who supersedes any existent being in greatness,

and this being “exists both in” human “understanding and in reality.”

This idea directly

challenges those who do not believe in God and may also be an imperfect supposition.

Opponents, like Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilon of Marmoutiers (AD 994–1083),

Immanuel Kant, and Norman Malcolm, discuss the perceived weaknesses of his theory.

Gaunilon believed that Anselm’s ontological process could wish anything into existence. He

supposes that “it should be proved first that this being … really exists somewhere” to establish

that it is “greater than all” other beings.

While Gaunilon finds some favorable content in

Anselm’s argument, Kant wholly objects because existence itself does not contribute to God’s

greatness, stating that the “physico-theology is…incapable of presenting a determinate

conception of a supreme cause of the world.”

Existence translates to “being,” and Kant does not

see “being as a real predicate … (which aids in the determination of a thing);” hence, this would

not set him apart from other conceived gods.

Ian Proops views Kant’s protestations as directed

at Leibniz and others instead of Anselm.

Malcolm partially agrees with Kant and Anselm’s

views, recognizing Anselm’s valid presentation of the Trinity as a “single necessary Being.”

Ontological impacts are diverse in each section of the book. Heiser notes that the Israelite

religion places “Yahweh as sovereign and … vicegerent,” pointing out his “ontological

Saint Anselm, Proslogium and Monologium (including In Behalf of the Food by Gaunilon and Reply by

Anselm and Cur Deus Homo), trans. Sidney Norton Deane (1903, repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers,

2003), 8; Several authors that support and defend Anselm’s argument to those who proffer “versions of it” are

Descartes, Leibniz, Hartshorne, Barth, Malcolm, and Alvin Plantinga; Evans and Manis, Philosophy of Religion, 58-

62.

Gaunilon, “In Behalf of the Fool: An Answer to the Argument of Anselm in the Proslogium,” in Anselm,

Proslogium and Monologium, 145, 150.

J. M. D. Meiklejohn, trans., Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Bohn’s Philosophical Library (London,

England: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), 386.

Ibid., 368; See also Ian Proops, “Kant on the Ontological Argument,” Noûs 49, no. 1 (2015): 1, 9.

Proops, “Kant,” 9.

Anselm, Proslogium and Monologium, 28.

233

uniqueness as the creator of all things, including the” bǝnê 'ĕlōhîm in the heavenly court

(Prologue).

“Eliphaz’s righteousness is based on ontological superiority” as opposed to Job’s

basis of “innocence” (Dialogue).

Zophar recognizes that Job has “ontological” and

“epistemological” limitations, but Seong Hyun notes that Job’s claim of blamelessness (9:20-22)

means that he is ontologically “pure and innocent.”

The mapping of “ontological and

epistemic” metaphors and the interpretation of salient and conceptual metaphors are complicated,

making them difficult for the Joban characters, Jewish sages, and modern scholars to explain.

Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument is grounded in the relationship between cause and effect. H.

Orton Wiley and Paul T. Culbertson’s three-fold outline includes the following conditions: (a)

“every event or change must have a sufficient and pre-existing cause;” (b) the “universe consists

of a system of changes;” and (c) “there must be a self-existent and necessary Being as the cause

of these events and changes.”

Stephen Evans and Zachary Manis share that these arguments are

also presented in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Leibniz, and Aquinas.

In Summa Theologica, Aquinas purports the relationship of God is revealed through

cause, being “a priori,” and the effect is a “demonstration,” being “a posteriori” (a result of the

cause).

God is “unchangeable and eternal,” and the existence of the cosmos is demonstrative

A vicegerent is a person who is an advisor to a king or a judge; Michael S. Heiser, “Divine Council,” in

Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers

Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 221.

Elmer B. Smick, Job, rev. ed., REBC, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids,

MI: Zondervan, 2010), 120; Cf. Alden, Job, 121.

Hyun, Job the Unfinalizable, 159, 204.

Lance R. Hawley, Metaphor Competition in the Book of Job, JAJSup 26, ed. Armin Lange, Bernard M.

Levinson, and Vered Noam (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 50-3.

Wiley and Culbertson, Introduction, 78.

Evans and Manis, Philosophy of Religion, 63.

Aquinas, ST I, q. 2, a. 2.

234

because its constructive “matter is mutable,” “subject to change,” and temporal.

Therefore, God

must exist as the First Cause; he is immutable and is from everlasting to everlasting (Pss 90:1-2;

103:17-18). Cosmological assertions and descriptions are the most prevalent applications of the

Classical Arguments in the Joban text (6:2-3; 7:9, 12; 37:5-11; 38:4-21; 42:7-9).

Moral Argument

The Moral Argument is independent of connections between God’s existence and natural

proofs because it is solely based on a divine revelation innate to man. The “first” premise is that

man is implanted with a “conscience” that gives him a sense of what is “right and wrong,”

fostering “responsibility and accountability.”

God’s laws (oral tradition and written) govern

morality below, and man is beholden to God, even though the Divine exists amorally because of

his absolute and impregnable righteousness. Since sin entered the world, God’s existence

requires and perpetuates the need for morality.

The second premise dictates that the corrupted

morality of the world results in “virtue” being “often unrewarded and vice being unpunished.”

In opposition to this, Eliphaz discourages the possibility of Job’s virtue, drawing attention to

what Ash refers to as “moral pollution” that exists in the heavens due to the fallen sons of God

(4:18; 15:15).

Hence, the cosmological order of the universe is replicated in the “moral order”

and exacted through retribution theology (cause and effect).

Wiley and Culbertson, Introduction, 79.

Ibid., 79, 81, 94.

Evans and Manis, Philosophy of Religion, 84.

Wiley and Culbertson, 81.

Ash, Job, 145.

Wilson, Job, 265.

235

God’s Rule is Classically Argued

As briefly described thus far, the Classical Arguments are the foundation for the earthly

characters’ arguments, mixed with divine retribution and theodicy. Their promoted theological

leanings have elements of doctrinal truths without questioning the existence of God. The

resulting life applications of their beliefs do not wholly reflect the fullness of God’s

representations of himself in his speeches. God delivers four arguments in keeping with the legal

tenor of the text, with his first speech (38–40:5) being mostly cosmological, coupled with the

Teleological Argument. As a result, the belief system of Natural Theology emerges. God rules

by design as the sovereign Creator and Governor, enabled by his authority, wisdom, and power.

Sovereignty By Design (38:4-11)

The most vivid Joban argument offered for God being the ultimate ruler is based on

Natural Theology, one of many types of theological study. “This branch of theology treats … the

being, attributes, and will of God as revealed in the various phenomena of nature…. In the great

book of nature,” the Bible, “we find evidence concerning the existence of God, His power, and

His purposes,” claims Wiley and Culbertson.

The Teleological Argument offers proof of a

world designed with purpose by an intelligent Being, and Natural Theology is a resulting belief.

Nature overwhelmingly speaks to divine design; to deny this is to deny God fundamentally.

The Divine rules by design; he rules all that man sees and so much more that exists

beyond sight, awareness, and understanding. The evidence of divine design reinforces that he

rules from a position of authority as the Creator. His complete influence in setting up the

physical, social, and spiritual orders of the cosmos, including the earth, instituted systems in

which all creation must abide. The cosmological section of his first speech (38:4-21) is a

Wiley and Culbertson, Introduction, 22.

236

testament to his influence, revealing his person and presence in the creation story. God provides

examples of his control over designing the foundations of the earth and the sea (38:4-11),

continually legislating order in all created realms.

God’s First Argument: He is the Creator

The physical and spiritual realms cannot be separated, as if they operate independently.

Mankind has attempted to do this by denying that God is the Creator. Atheists claim to be void

of belief in God; nonetheless, the absence of belief is a tenet in itself. In contrast, “ancient

thinkers … rarely ventured to question the existence of gods or a God. To them, the world made

no sense apart from the presence of a creator who maintained continuous control of the

universe,” explains Crenshaw.

The admitted absence of faith in God unsuccessfully disputes his existence, and nature

substantiates his divine involvement. The most rudimentary biblical argument begins with

Genesis 1:1. Yahweh’s Joban revelations offer more complex arguments through interrogatory

and declarative statements punctuated by vivid descriptions of his creative competence. The

undeniable wonder of the physical world is narrowed down to his intricate design and

providential care.

A consistent picture of God’s presence and originative involvement is revealed in Job

(10:8-9; 31:15; 33:4; 37:10; 40:15) and other scriptures (Gen 1:2, 26; John 1:1-4; Col 1:16).

Wiley notes, “Apart from revelation, man has had only vague mythological theories as to his

origin. … Before considering the final step in the creation of man, we must consider the

Wilson, Job, 236.

Crenshaw, Defending God, 26.

237

providence of God,” the Creator.

His providence sustains the functionality and persistent

operation of multi-layered and multifunctional planes.

God punctuates the nature-driven

arguments already offered throughout the Dialogue, specifically Elihu’s first speech (4–5). The

theophany delves deeply into these with the poetic discourse of profound imagery that causes Job

to realize God’s person fully. “It is not the creation, but the creator who overwhelms” him,

asserts Harold Bloom.

The Evidence

The structure and circuitous nature of God’s questioning of Job on the design of the earth

communicates his creative forethought on a grand scale (foundations of the earth, 38:4-11; the

vastness of the universe, 38:12-21; meteorological marvels, 38:22-30). From this, Job should

attain new wisdom and understanding to strengthen his knowledge of God and their relationship.

Longman states, “God’s point is that Job does not have the wisdom that is capable of answering

the questions surrounding his suffering” because he “has not yet acknowledged” God’s “rightful

place” and has continually discounted “God’s wisdom.”

Job’s arguments attempt to rationalize

the identity of God with what he thinks the Creator has done concerning his circumstances.

During the theophany, God portrays himself as one who is highly present. His theophanic

revelation (38:1–39:40) directly opposes the Joban protestations about El Shaddai regarding the

distance between him and his creation. The thematic juxtaposition of the setting and themes in

chapters three and thirty-eight showcase, more so, the chasm between Job’s distressed perception

H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, vol. 2 (1941, repr. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas

City, 1953), 7-8.

Taylor, Theological Formation, 19.

Harold Bloom, Ruin the Sacred Truths: Poetry and Belief from the Bible to the Present (1987, repr.,

Cambridge, MA: First Harvard University Press, 1991), 22.

This is a strong statement built on Job’s questioning of God’s situational motives and movements; there

is not any evidence that God doubts Job’s innocence; Longman, Job, 428.

238

to that of Yahweh’s proven placement and demonstrated design. He “opens Job’s eyes to a far

more expansive worldview than he ever conceived previously,” posits Lockwood, and these

revelations come in rapid succession.

God’s opening speech proves he was listening to Job’s curse and lament (3). As the

Designer of the earth and the sea, the emphases draw attention to the above and below, for the

Earth, as a heavenly body, is set in its primordial place in the above, and temporal life is

confined to the below by divinely set limitations (time, space, and other limitations of Natural

Law).

Design of the Earth (38:4-11)

“God begins” by rhetorically describing his design of the earth and relating it to the

construction of a building.

He is metaphorically depicted in creative vocations with “different

images, casting” him as a “builder, potter,” and “weaver” in the OT, adds Andersen (Pss 127:1-

2; 137:13-16; Isa 64:8).

The book of Job includes familiar words and tasks necessary for

founding a building and ensuring its structure will endure. Eliphaz explains that God properly

“laid the foundation of the earth” (4:4) when he “set its measurements” (4:5), placing it on

recessed “bases” for stability below ground (4:6a) and “laid its cornerstone” (4:6b) for its

structural solidity above ground.

These two descriptions would hold significance for Job

because the “ancient Hebrews believed the earth rested on great pillars” and these “bases” could

The connections to sovereignty and Buber’s concept of the above and below were discussed in Chapter

Five; Lockwood, “God’s Speech,” 170.

Longman, Job, 428.

Andersen, Job, 292.

In relation to the idea of the earth being a house or building, Andersen mentions the possibility of  

(ḇînâ, meaning understanding or possessing intelligence about something) being a noun rooted in the Hebrew word

for “build” (; bānâ); Ibid., 293; GHCLOT, s.v. “ ,” 115; Ibid., s.v. “,” 127-8.

239

be the mountains (Prov 8:23) or the sea itself (Ps 24:2).

Rashi relates the laying of the

cornerstone to Genesis 1:9-10 as happening in the “middle of the sea.”

Alshikh, the sixteenth-century Jewish scholar, combines the imagery of the mountains

with his commentary on the state of mankind (38:4). He draws a correlation between the

mountainous “cliffs” to the suffering of men, as a means of taking their places as pillars of the

earth.

He explains that those “who are in the siege and the precipice, who are from the cliffs of

the earth,” its inhabitants, “are possessing sufferings for God … and are the pillars on which the

world is right … and the earth rests on them.”

The physical mountains serving as pillars have

creases, crags, and shadows. These could poetically depict human beings at the top of the created

order. In their lives, suffering could also be represented as creases and rifts that cast shadows.

Not left to the shadows are the celebratory actions of the stars and the sons of God,

connecting Job 38 to Genesis and Job 3. In Genesis, the “dry land” that God “called earth”

appears from the “expanse” of the waters (Gen 1:9-10). The creation of the earth invokes the

rising of the dawn on the first day when God declared that there should be light (Gen 1:3). The

break of day in Genesis and Job’s desire that the day of his birth never see “breaking dawn”

(3:9c) are direct correlations to his mother’s womb in his curse (3:11-26). The breaking dawn

that splits the day from night (“morning stars;” 38:7a) and the extinguishing of the twilight stars

(3:9a) are both magnanimous moments. In Job 38, the above rejoices in harmony with God’s

creative acts, just as Job wishes the opposite in chapter three.

Vicchio, Job, 258-9.

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 38:6.

Alshikh, “Chelkat Mechokek on Job,” 38:4.

Ibid.

240

Design of the Sea (38:9-11)

The design of the sea is dually described as the birth of a child (38:8b) and a powerful

natural force, focusing on the natural element and its connection to cosmological order.

Andersen calls the sea a “threatening element” that must be contained, and Wilson relays its

existence as a “hostile force.”

Alden states the sea is not a “hostile monster” that must be cowed

by God.

He and O’Connor interpret the personification of the sea as a babe that forces his way

into the world, is lovingly swaddled, and is “submissive to [God’s] will” as part of his sovereign

kingdom.

Interestingly, just as the sea is depicted as a marvelous and dangerous place without

God’s management, the mother’s womb is described in Jewish midrash as “a place of danger” as

well as a place of nourishment and “nurturing” (Vay. Rab. 14:2-3; b. Nid. 30b:18, 21).

Sovereignty By Authority (38:12-24)

Power and authority are often used synonymously to describe God’s relationship with the

universe, the earth, and mankind. For example, Job 38:12-41 in the NASB uses the heading

“God’s Mighty Power” for this scripture passage. One cannot dispute that the descriptions found

in the thirty verses demonstrate his power and his authority. The actions overwhelmingly speak

to his authority over the heavens (   ) and the earth (   ). The šāmayim and the 'ereṣ are

geocentrically connected, with the “sun, moon, and stars” orbiting the earth, which is “fixed.”

Andersen, Job, 293-4.

Ibid., 294; Wilson, Job, 236.

Alden, Job, 347.

Ibid.; O’Connor, Job, 42-3.

Shana Strauch Schick, “Depictions of Childbirth in Rabbinic Literature,” in Mothers in the Jewish

Cultural Imagination, vol. 5, JCS, ed. Marjorie Lehman, Jane L. Kanarek, and Simon J. Bronner (Liverpool,

England: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2017), 287-9; Sefaria, “Vayikra Rabbah,” Sefaria Midrash

Rabbah, ed. Jason Rappoport, Michael Siev, and Yaacov Francus, trans. Joshua Schreier, 2022,

https://www.sefaria.org/Vayikra_Rabbah?tab=contents; The William Davidson Foundation, “Niddah,” William

Davidson ed., Sefaria, https://www.sefaria.org/Niddah?tab=contents.

Jozef Jančovič, “Does God Micromanage the World? Learning about the Cosmos from the Book of Job,”

Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly 33, no. 2 (2023): 162.

241

The offered Joban testimony concerning God’s governing authority over both these realms is

extensive (heavens, 25x; earth, 57x).

God’s Second Argument: He is the Governor

The ancient Jewish tradition of the cosmological government of God differs from the

pagan perceptions of other gods. The cosmos is “subdivided” into two parts, attributed to

prevalent ANE beliefs, whereas the Jews believed in a three-part sectioning of God’s

cosmographical domain.

The šāmayim “included the firmament” and, in some translations, is

akin to the    (rāqîa, meaning “sky dome” or “expanse”), which is in the middle of the heavens

with a “space above … and below.”

The rāqîa is described in Hebrew as being hammered or

stretched out flat and solid” (37:18; Isa 42:5; 44:24; 51:13; Zech 12:1), is called “the

atmosphere,” and is where “weather ‘happens.’”

The upper part of the heavens is addressed

when God speaks of his command of the morning, invoking thoughts of the rising sun (38:12a)

and the breaking of dawn as the “morning stars” fade from view (38:7) to their known “place”

(38:12b). These types of elements are expected topics concerning God’s work in the world. He

moves beyond earthly elements to those invisible and unknown to Job.

The Evidence

God’s governance is examined repeatedly in the Scriptures, and his choice of evidence in

chapter thirty-eight may be selective for a reason. Considering that the destructive natural forces

of fire falling from the sky (1:16) and wind (1:19) are under his command, why focus on his

Jančovič, “Does God Micromanage the World,” 161-2.

The Jewish belief in three sections of the šāmayim is supported in the OT, referring to the rāqîa (Gen

1:6-8; Pss 19:2; 150:1; Ezek 1:22-23), the space above (Pss 2:4; 11:4; 139:8), and the space below (Pss 8:8; 79:2);

Ibid, 161.

Ibid.

242

ability to wield such forces? Did Job not understand this and was disquieted about why God

would use them to destroy his way of life? In the first speech, God rhetorically infers that his

enduring governance partially consists of the natural order and operation of these atmospheric

elements. Moving over to a discussion of why God allowed certain elements to be employed

against Job and his family is to move out of the natural order into the moral order. The word

“allow” is a common term to describe God’s behavior in permitting the disasters and has been

used in this study. In truth, the deeper understanding would be that God did not exercise his

authority to prevent or circumvent these things from happening.

Fixed laws have been set in place that function as operable extensions of his authority,

having been designed and ordained by him. Contemplative evidence has long since recognized

the functions of the independent operations of some elements; however, modern scientific

evidence shows that elements are deeply connected.

Created elements cannot act independently

outside of what God has designed them to do.

During his lifetime, Job experienced atmospheric elements in operation and saw the

effects of their predictable and unpredictable behaviors. These are forces that operate under the

auspices of ordained power and function. On the other hand, he realizes during God’s speech that

there is much he has not seen and is unaware of within the created realms. God is in full

command of the elements and the seasons. Bernhard Anderson (1916–2017) calls God the

For example, the gravitational pull that exudes from the earth, the sun, and the moon initiates a

“bulging…effect” on the sides of the ocean, creating waves and “high and low tides,” depending on what side is

nearest or farthest from the moon and the sun; Babu Thaliath, “Nature of Gravitation: The Structural Intuition of

Gravitation in the Framework of Early Modern Mechanical Philosophy,” Philosophical Study 2, no. 9 (September,

2012): 603.

As previously mentioned, Philo Judæus, the first century philosopher, did not see the heavenly bodies as

“independent gods.” He recognized that “others, on the contrary, who have not discovered the supreme Governor,

who thus rules everything, have attributed the causes of the different things which exist in the world to the

subordinate powers, as if they had brought them to pass by their own independent act;” Philo, Spec. 1.3 (Yonge);

Philo, The Works, 177-8.

243

“cosmic King,” and these elemental “regularities … express God’s covenant faithfulness, upon

which all creatures depend (Gen 8:22).

He Commands the Elements (38:12-20)

Many of the questions God asks in these verses (38:12-38) can only be seen and

experienced from God’s perspective outside the confines of time and space. Job can neither view

the “ends” (edges) of the earth, as the sun rises and sets (38:12a), nor see the glory of the rāqîa,

as it clothes the earth (38:18). He cannot pinpoint the homes of light and darkness and what path

they take to rise and fall (38:19-20). The earth’s contours in light and darkness are not fully

revealed to him. In stark contrast to Job’s lack of authority, God commands every natural

operation. He directs every elemental function as it unfolds in repetitive procession, along with

knowing every height, depression, and earthly substance from the earth’s surface to its core

(38:14).

Job is confined in body and mind to his present space and abilities. Transversing the

physical depths of the ocean (38:16) and standing before the gates that lead to the spiritual depths

of death (38:17) would have been terrifying prospects, even though Job professed to yearn for

these types of experiences in chapter three. These elements are beyond his human experience and

represent physical impossibilities. They demonstrate the elaborate command of the unseen and

unknown aspects of God’s governance over the elements.

He Commands the Seasons (38:22-24)

The Divine speaks of his command of the middle and lower atmospheric elements that

also function within his purview and boast literal and figurative seasons. Genesis 8:22 defines

Bernhard W. Anderson, “The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: The Sovereignty of God in the Bible,”

ThTo 53, no. 1 (1996): 8.

244

the seasons as “seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night.”

During these times of the year, God commands the snow, the hail, the lightning, the wind, and

the rain. These are natural to certain seasons, which represent opposites in the physical world

that come and go. Alden remarks that the elements of “the storm with all its power,

unpredictability and mystery” are addressed by God (38:22-30), Elihu (36:29-30, 32-33;

37:1-13), and Job (6:16; 24:19).

Living in an earthly region that experiences times of extreme

moisture to times of unending drought, it must have been incredible for Job to imagine great

storehouses of snow and hail (38:22). God also includes a figurative season of peace and war.

For this, he reserves hail as a defense of his people.

Only a sovereign God can orchestrate the

use of elements and seasons at the proper time (natural order) and for the right reason (natural

and moral order); he does so because of his wisdom.

Sovereignty Through Wisdom (38:21–39:30)

Several trains of thought surround the discussions of God’s intentions for sharing this

level of knowledge about the proper governance of the world. First, the intense and vivid

delivery of information about the forces of nature he designed, created, and governed is a

testament to his wisdom. Second, God’s speeches are meant to achieve sublimity, meaning the

theophany was to be an awe-inspiring and fearful event that would impart exemplary knowledge.

Alden, Job, 349-50.

This declaration may speak to the time of authorship for the book. Biblical occurrences of hail being used

by God in or before Job’s proposed lifetime are undocumented. Certainly, Moses would have known of the first

documented occurrence, which was when the seventh plaque killed both Egyptians and their animals with a

hailstorm that was combined with thunder and flashes of fire (Exod 9:23-25). God also enacted plagues that used the

elements of water (Exod 7:17) and darkness (Exod 10:21-22). Solomon may have had knowledge of the fleeing

Canaanites who were killed by large hailstones being dropped upon them (Josh 10:1-11). Isaiah and Ezekiel

prophesy about the use of hail and other weather-related phenomena as an outpouring of God’s anger (Isa 30:30 –

flaming cloudburst, downpour of rain; Ezek 13:13 – wind, flooding rain). Revelation predicts an unprecedented

hailstorm when the angel pours out the “seventh bowl of wrath” (16:17-21).

245

God wanted Job’s full and undivided attention to maximize his receptivity, but not for the

Divine’s benefit.

Sublimity became a measure of literary content around the first century AD and has been

a consistent topic in literary circles, with a resurgence at the end of the seventeenth century. In

the first century, Dionysius Longinus describes the true sublime as “when a passage is pregnant

in suggestion, when it is hard, nay impossible, to distract the attention from it, and when it takes

a strong, lasting hold on the memory.”

Longinus’ criteria for achieving sublimity are present in

the Joban text. Modern scholars such as William P. Brown and Newsom have applied these

characteristics to the book of Job.

The strong presence of sublimity is adequately described by

Brown, stating,

God’s terror is a fertile terror, and it sets the tone for all that follows. To Job, God’s discourse edifies

even as it terrorizes. … Creation at its most desolate bears life and beauty. And it is precisely in the

desolation that Job discovers creation’s dignity.

Akin to this, God’s straightforward approach to imparting his wisdom in such a manner is

attributed to his behavior instead of focusing on Job. Some believe that God wants to overpower

H. L. Havell, trans., Longinus on the Sublime (London, England: Macmillan and Company, 1890), 12;

The idea of the literary sublime originated circa “first century AD” in a work by Caecilius of Calacte. A treatise

called On the Sublime was written as a literary criticism of his work by Longinus (AD 213–273). In Havell’s

introduction, he provides some biographical background on the commonality of Longinus’ name and touches on

issues of provenance. Longinus was also known by the first name, Cassius. Due to these issues, the author is

contemporarily referred to as Pseudo-Longinus; See also Paolo Euron, Aesthetics, Theory and Interpretation of

Literary Work, Transgressions: Cultural Studies and Education 133, ed. Shirley R. Steinberg (Leiden, The

Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2019), 21; T. S. Dorsch, ed., Classical Literary Criticism, trans. T. S. Dorsch (1965,

repr., Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1969), 24.

Edmund Burke (1729–1797) defines the sublime in terms of experiences that are “incapable of giving

any delight, and are ſimply terrible; but at certain diſtances, and with certain modifications, they may be, and they

are delightful, as an everyday experience” (simply; distances). His early eighteenth century book sparked a

rejuvenation of thought, which extended to Job’s plight and the divine-human relationship in biblical scholarship;

Edmund Burke, A Phlioſophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (London,

England: R. and J. Dodsley, 1757), 14; William P. Brown, The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science and the

Ecology of Wonder (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 115-40; Newsom, Moral Imaginations, 243,

248.

Brown, The Seven Pillars, 127.

246

Job through chastisement by using overwhelming imagery to make a point.

Basically, they

suppose that he wants to prove his intellectual superiority by putting Job in his place. The push to

portray God as participating in one-upmanship by superimposing human tendencies upon his

person does not speak to God’s transcendence or his intellectual and divine superiority. God did

not need to scare Job to solicit his repentance, as once again, Job had not sinned and was

declared innocent. Implying that God must benefit from the interaction through achieving

personal satisfaction and proving he is the wisest diminishes his purposes and the outcomes of

the theophany. God’s audience is for the benefit of Job, whom he loves and admires.

God’s Third Argument: He Rules Through Wisdom

Expanding upon the previous commentary of God’s command of atmospheric elements

and seasons, God asserts that the wisdom he employs through his governance is key to managing

other elements in the world. Two different aspects lend themselves to sublimity in the third

argument. One is that his elemental wisdom fosters intimate and sometimes enjoyable

interactions with other natural elements, and two, he is knowledgeable and capable of dealing

with unnatural elements.

The Evidence

Previously, Job rhetorically and directly addressed examples of creation to confirm his

belief in God’s abilities and ultimate control of nature. Harry Hahne explains, “Nature is

inherently good as a part of God’s creation. … When people look at nature, they should see the

mighty hand of God behind it. Job poetically describes how reflection on nature should teach us

A. S. Peake, ed., Job: Introduction: Revised Version with Notes and Index, NCB (New York, NY:

Oxford University Press, 1905), 97-8; Greenstein, Job, 165; Cf. Smick, Job, 276-7.

247

of God’s work as sovereign creator and sustainer of all life.”

This is central to how Job

processes his suffering and how God affirms that the scope of his providential wisdom is more

expansive than Job’s view of the divine-human relationship.

The Natural Elements: Above and Below (38:31–39:30)

Things Above

Job witnessed God’s system in the cosmos and acknowledged God’s handiwork is

beyond humanity’s reach and control in the second speech cycle. In Job 9, he asks, “Who alone

stretches out the heavens, and tramples down the sea; who makes the Bear, Orion, and the

Pleiades, and the constellations of the south? It is He who does great things, the unfathomable,

and wondrous works without number” (9:8-10).

In 38:31-32, God mentions the same three stars

and references the mazzārôṯ, a hapax legomenon identified as a plural proper noun but in the

NASB is used as a common noun for “constellation” (38:32a).

Job uses a different Hebrew

word to describe his unnamed constellations to the South,   (ḥeḏer, meaning “chambers” or

“inner apartments), and Gesenius believes this can be metaphorical for the “most remote

Harry Alan Hahne, “Nature and Theodicy in the Book of Job,” (PDF), Evangelical Theological Society

Annual Meeting, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Scottsdale, Arizona, November 14, 2007, 2.

Vicchio, Job, 262.

Gesenius does not list another biblical occurrence for the word meaning constellations (; mazzārôṯ)

The equivalent in the Chaldean language changes the resh to a lamech, and this translates to the Chaldean term for

“lucifer,” as noted in the Vulgate; GHCLOT, s.v. “ ,” 461; Ibid., s.v. “ ,” 462; Lucifer is referred to as the

“bright-morning star” or “light-bearer,” which singularly has been attributed to Satan and correlates to the writings

of Isaiah (14:4), Daniel, Luke (10:18), John (Rev 22:16) and Paul; See Maurice Hansen, “The Name Lucifer,”

OTStu 4, no. 2 (1884): 71-3; Poetically and thematically, could one say that God “brought out” (38:32) Lucifer for

this season of Job’s life?

The mazzārôṯ may refer to a group of specific constellations that form the “Zodiacal circle” (Rowley and

Driver). Rowley mentions that mazzārôṯ is associated with mazzālôṯ (), another hapax legomenon used in 2 Kgs

23:5. Freehof says Job makes no mention of the mazzārôṯ in 9:9, confirming that chapter thirty-eight is also unclear

about its reference to a particular grouping of stars (see Footnote 67); Rowley, Job, 245; S. R. Driver, The Book of

Job: In the Revised Version, Edited with Introductions and Brief Annotations (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press,

1908), 117; Solomon Freehof, Book of Job: A Commentary, JCBR (New York, NY: Union of American Hebrew

Congregations, 1958), 243; See also Vicchio, 262.

248

southern regions.”

Adding to this, Job is eluding to God’s position in 9:8, from which he

approaches the sea. He “tramples” or “treads” above or upon the water from the high places,

        (vǝdôrēk 'al bāmǒṯê).

This Hebraic phrase is associated with a “fortress,” high and

remote, not easily accessible by others, and this parallels the same areas about which God is

speaking.

In God’s references to the heavenly bodies, he asks questions concerning the

administration of their activities, using terms that infer they can be bound and restricted

(“chains,” 38:31a; “cords,” 38:31b; “season,” 38:32a). His intimate knowledge of their

limitations is linked to their prescribed dominion and operations since he ultimately rules over

their placement and functions (38:33). Rowley determines that the translation of “chains” is

“found elsewhere only in” 1 Samuel 15:32 and was caused by a corruption of two Hebrew

letters.

This verse renders the word to mean bind or tie (HB, KJV, NASB), also used in 38:6.

Rashi views the constellations as bound to the seasons of the earth, being “appointed to bring

cold and heat, summer and winter” and to bring about “the Deluge” (lightning, clouds, and

rain).

The “hidden wisdom” (38:36), or “inward parts of knowledge,” Rashi defines, are the

reins with which God governs the above.

Freehof sees the focus as being on the “minds of the

living” and what they know, inversely drawing attention to their lack of wisdom and God’s

abundance of knowledge.

GHCLOT, s.v. “  ,” 262.

Ibid., s.v. “      ,” 125, 627.

Ibid.

Rowley, Job, 245.

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 38:31-35.

Ibid., 38:36; Vicchio cites the difficulty of extracting the meaning, contemplating whether this refers to

the mind or the heart. Psalm 51:6-8 speaks of an “inward being” and the “Targum” translates this to “heart,” but he

identifies the “context” as being the “actions of nature;” Vicchio, Job, 263.

Freehof, Job, 243-4.

249

Things on Land

Many references to plants and land animals abound in the speeches of God, Job, and the

visitors. God created all things and deemed them good (Gen 1:10-13, 24-25). Job compares

plants to the life of man (flowers and a tree; 14:2, 7). Eliphaz compares the wicked to the growth

cycle of grapevines and olive trees (15:33). Bildad talks of those who live a godless life. He

determines they will not prosper, citing examples of papyrus and rushes without water, withering

plants, and plant shoots that spread out in the garden and are cut down (8:11-18).

Indeed, plants and animals are of great use to humans (food, subsistence, and enjoyment),

but they are so much more to God. God implies that his wisdom of the natural elements and their

operations is not just for the benefit of man. He employs his knowledge to care for the land and

its other inhabitants. He creates a “channel for the flood” to carry water to where it is needed. He

“bring[s] rain on a land” or “desert” uninhabited by “people” (28:26) so that it will not be

“desolate,” “grass” will “sprout,” and provide sustenance for other living things (38:27). He is

the “Father” and cares for all things (38:28).

Domesticated and wild animals serve as illustrations, like lions and their offspring (4:10-

11, 28:8, 38:39-40) and donkeys (11:12, 24:5, 39:5). In chapter thirty-nine, God describes

mountain goats, deer, oxen, wild bulls, an ostrich, a stork, a hawk, and a horse (39:1-9). The

Behemoth that God speaks of in 40:15-24 is thought to be a hippopotamus, “which is a powerful,

uncontrollable land animal. … By using this extreme example, … God emphasizes his great

power with which he created and controls all animals.”

Man can possess some of these animals, appreciate them, and harness their abilities to use

them for his benefit. He cannot truly possess or harness their spirit; they will never be entirely

Hahne, “Nature and Theodicy,” 1.

250

within his control. God alone orders their behaviors because of his intimate knowledge and cares

for them daily as they ultimately belong to him. He confirms in Psalm 50:10-11, “For every

animal of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains,

and everything that moves in the field is mine.”

Things Below

God’s providence and administration extend from land to the bodies of water that cover

the earth and things beneath the surface of the deep. God has set boundaries for the bodies of

water. Hence, the sea knows “where its proud waves shall stop” (Job 38:11). The amount of land

exposed by this limit, the predetermined height of the waves, and the amount of force the wind

may use to push it temporarily beyond its accepted space fall under divine control. The water

will always recede and return to its place (R. Levi ben Gerson).

There are invisible forces that

assist with the function of the ocean, initiating its ebbs and flows. Limits extend to seas, lakes,

and rivers that either flow to and from the ocean or are supplied from waters that naturally spring

from beneath the earth’s surface (Gen 7:11; Exod 20:4). Not much is said in Job about the

variety of animals that live in water compared to on land.

Several other Joban verses highlight creatures who live beneath the surface. The first

revelation appears when Job invokes a curse on the day he was born (3:12). He refers to “the

professional prophets who … were compensated for cursing a client’s enemies,” but Job

wondered whether their curses could be “powerful enough to rouse Leviathan, a…sea monster”

(3:8) with the characteristics of a dragon.

Another sea monster named Rahab appears in 26:12.

R. Levi ben Gerson (1288–1344) is known as Gersonides and by his patronymic name of Ralbag;

Sefaria, “Ralbag on Job,” 38:11, https://www.sefaria.org/Ralbag_on_Job?tab=contents.

Lawson, Job, 41; See also Alden, Job, 65, 367, 370.

251

Alden points out that “Job did not deify the sea or believe in the existence of a sea god” or

mythical monsters because he was a “monotheist.”

Compared to the Behemoth of chapter forty, God provides much greater detail about

Leviathan, and any possible interaction between Job and the monster is inadvisable (41:1-34).

The hyperbole surrounding Leviathan in Job 41 rises to the level of being almost unnatural. This

effectively assures Job that the depth of God’s wisdom inexplicably benefits his administration.

The text reinforces that there is nothing too big for God to handle, and everything comes under

his control, even unnatural elements.

The Unnatural Elements

There are unnatural elements at work in the natural world, two of which are worthy of

mention. The classification of things beyond the known natural world is considered supernatural.

Chapters Three and Four investigated adversarial elements, the origin of Satan and the role of the

śāṭān in the Joban saga, and their interactions with the above and below. Further exploration is

necessary to understand how unnatural elements affect the natural world and God’s oversight.

A supernatural, spiritual realm exists outside of Job’s full cognizance. Mankind is not

always aware of how and when it encounters this realm; Job is no exception. He is focused on

his situation of suffering, and he remains unaware of the invisible efforts and manipulation of

natural elements to visit disasters upon his life. The spiritual realm in the text is characterized by

the heavenly gatherings of the “sons of God” with God presiding as King, but the realm is not

confined to that space. Heavenly hosts, angels, messengers, and holy ones are other names for

these created beings. Some of them do not have any direct interaction with humans. In this

This stems from Alden’s belief that Leviathan and Rahab are mythical creatures. He likens Job’s

comments to repeating a fairytale, even though one does not believe the characters are real; Alden, Job, 65.

252

realm, some remain loyal to God and those who have fallen away and do not serve him any

longer. Make no mistake: all the heavenly hosts, loyal or fallen, are subservient because God is

ultimately the King of kings.

God created satan; however, like the other sons of God, he was not created for Job’s

world.

Holy and demonic forces do not possess the nature of God and should not be seen as his

equal. God is incomparable to them in likeness and sovereignty. Andersen describes Satan as

having an “insolence” that “shows a mind … twisted away from God, but his hostility is not on

the scale of a rival power. There is evil here, but not dualism” with Satan or any other

supernatural being.

Since the śāṭān despises God, he is in a perpetual state of suffering;

therefore, inflicting suffering is his only means to compromise Job’s righteousness holistically.

Everything in the natural and supernatural realms reminds him of his inadequacies in light of

God’s attributes.

Sovereignty Through Power (40:15–41:34)

God presents his sovereignty to Job, inversely describing himself as the Designer of all

things, a Creator who employs his designs by positioning himself as a wise Governor who rules

with authority. All these examples are prescriptions of sovereignty and must coincide with his

power. The doctrine of sovereignty in the Holy Scriptures “is a complex subject,” with the issue

being “not the power of God as such…. Rather the issue is how God uses that power.”

How his

power was employed in creation and continually administered through his governance introduces

Robert Moses, “‘The satan’ in Light of the Creation Theology of Job,” HBT 34, no. 1 (2012): 20;

Leonard Mare, “The God of Job.” VEcc 33, no. 1 (2012): 2.

Andersen, Job, 92.

Anderson, “Sovereignty of God,” 6.

253

the idea that God bestows limited power and authority on the things he created. He is reserving

the full display of his power for the end of the world.

God’s Fourth Argument: He Bestows Limited Power

God displays his omnipotence through the design and creation of the universe, including

Earth and its inhabitants. His recognition of natural and unnatural elements at work in the world

is a testament to his omniscience and immutability, for these elements have fixed functions that

govern their existence. At the same time, some can display unpredictable, supernatural

tendencies. The sovereign power of God, in conjunction with his bestowal of limited power,

balances the predictable and unexpected, the consistent and inconsistent, and the controlled and

chaotic ways of the world. Recognizing the coexistence of “order and chaos” does not diminish

God’s person; his work is “absolute … without any obstacle or hindrance” and his creations are

“dynamic,” with extended limited “freedoms.”

Among the earlier examples are the descriptions

of two animals that dominate the second speech, Behemoth (40:15-24) and Leviathan (41:1-34).

These passages are among those that serve many functions within the text (e.g., practical

illustrations of the natural and supernatural, challenges to Job’s sensibilities, and revelations of

prophetic and eschatological emphases).

The natural existence of these animals is supported by them being created on the fifth day

along with other animals (Bk. Noah 15:7-8; 1 En. 58:8; 4 Ezra 6:47-52 NRSV; 2 Bar. 29:4; Pirqe

Anderson, “Sovereignty of God,” 6-7.

254

R. El. 9:1-8).

Reportedly, just as the land and the water were parted, so were these animals. The

Behemoth (a male animal) would reside on land, and the Leviathan (a female animal) would

reside in the water.

The biblical and extrabiblical descriptions of these animals and similar ones

found in extant literature and artifacts have challenged biblical scholars, and the evidence

presented by God certainly challenges Job’s sensibilities.

The unnatural elements revealed in biblical and extrabiblical texts point them toward a

mythical existence that evolved from Mesopotamian and Canaanite literature, yielding

assumptions about “appropriation[s] by the oral epic traditions of early Israel.”

Pope and Day

draw correlations between the Ugaritic Behemoth, with Pope identifying a bovine “called 'gl il

'tk” (meaning, the “ferocious bullock of El”) and Day relaying that “El’s calf,” named Atik

('gl 'il 'tk) is mentioned twice in conjunction with Leviathan.

Comparing sources led Hermann

Gunkel (1862–1932) and others to believe that the Bible is heavily influenced by ANE

cosmogonic myths, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enūma Eliš, Atrahasis Epic, Baal Cycle, and

the Egyptian creation myth from Heliopolis. Furthermore, one of his most famous published

studies attempted to prove a relationship between Genesis 1 (“Urzeit”) and Revelation 12

Several references to the Book of Noah and contributing content can be found in other ancient Hebraic

and Aramaic texts, such as the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen, 5 column, line 29 reflects a partial title; columns 2 –

5 and then, an insert continuing through column 17) and the Aramaic Levi Document (ALD 10:10), along with other

excerpts in the books of Enoch and Jubilees. The Pirḳê De Rabbi Eliezer (Perkei DeRabbi) has a recounting of the

fifth day of creation and significant Jewish historical moments that occurred on the fifth days of various months; See

also Michael E. Stone, “The Book(s) Attributed to Noah,” DSD 13, no. 1 (2006): 4-23; Gerald Friedlander, trans.,

Pirḳê De Rabbi Eliezer: (The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great) According to the Text of the Manuscript

Belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna (New York, NY: Bloch Publishing Company, 1916), 60-4.

In the Hebrew and English Bible translations, only masculine pronouns are used for these creatures (he,

his, and him). The sex of the creatures may be referred to using male and female terms depending on the sources of

the content. In the case of Rabbinic sources, this differs due to the time frame of the proffered midrash and ongoing

redaction efforts; K. William Whitney, Jr., Two Strange Beasts: Leviathan and Behemoth in Second Temple and

Early Rabbinic Judaism, Number 63, HSM, ed. Peter Machinist (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 130.

Whitney, Two Strange Beasts, 22.

Pope, Job, 269; John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of Canaanite Myth in the

Old Testament, UCOP 35 (Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge, 1985), 81-2, 84.

255

(“Endzeit”) to Babylonian myths.

He acknowledges the presence of Chaoskampf, defined as the

struggle or a battle against chaos. Gunkel believed that this battle was against one monster with

various names (e.g., Rahab, Leviathan, Behemoth, and Tiamat) and/or the sea itself, with more

so the sea being the common denominator in most stories.

Yehezkel Kaufmann disagrees that biblical stories are complete adaptations from

extrabiblical myths, denies any Babylonian influence, and points out that Yahweh is never

“portrayed as [a] world conqueror in the cosmogonic legends of the Bible. There is no biblical

parallel to pagan myths relating the defeat of older gods … by younger; no other gods are present

in primordial times.”

This is not to say that ancient Rabbinic literature was not influenced; these

works are often dominated by opinion and generational repetitions of oral tradition that may have

been expanded and enhanced over the centuries. Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha cannot be ruled

out since they display cosmogonic themes. All three of these collections espouse additional

prophetic and eschatological themes.

The Evidence

Behemoth (40:15-24)

God shares that he created humankind and the Behemoth (40:15), but the possible

meanings are quite diverse. The plain meaning seems to convey that Job, or mankind, was made

the same week that man was created. The phrase in 40:15,      ('ǎšher 'āśîṯî 'immāḵ),

meaning “that” or “which I made, as well as (with) you,” is partially omitted in the LXX, only

Hermann Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine relgionsgeschichtliche

Untersuchung über Gen 1 and Ap Joh 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895); Whitney, Two Strange

Beasts, 1.

Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, 91-111; Whitney, 2.

Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, trans. Moshe

Greenberg (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), 62.

256

keeping “with thee” (40:10 LXX). Wolfers dissects this and proposes that they were “alike

fashioned of flesh and blood,” or that God is saying he was “made (to be) with you.”

The idea

is that he “saddled” Job with Behemoth and that it is the beast inside him, so to speak.

Literally,

bǝhēmâ (  ) in the HB typically represents four-legged beasts or non-descript animals (39:15;

Pss 36:6; 135:8; 147:9; Isa 30:6).

The description of Behemoth conveys natural and supernatural tendencies and attributes.

The Behemoth consumes grass (40:15b) and possesses the physical features of an animal

(muscles, tendons, bones, tail, and limbs; 40:16b-18). Instinctively, he migrates between the

mountains (40:20) and a variety of water sources (marsh, 40:21; brook, 40:22b; river, 40:23a)

with confidence and keen awareness (40:23-24a).

He may have been created first and/or

considered the highest animal form on land (40:19a). He does not appear to have any natural

predators (40:19, 24).

Supernaturally, he possesses an otherworldly physique and countenance. For example,

his body is reinforced with precious metals like bronze and iron, coupled with references that

may relate to his sexual vigor, like “strength in his waist” (40:16a) and powerful muscles in “his

David Wolfers, “The Lord’s Second Speech in the Book of Job,” VT 40, no. 4 (October, 1990): 478.

Ibid., 478-9.

The Joban descriptions of Behemoth’s dwelling bring several questions to the forefront. If Behemoth is a

real animal, how is it that man has not discovered such a creature? Did this animal or any other animals remain in

the Garden of Eden and are therefore in existence but hidden from view? Other details about the location of

Behemoth are included in 1 Enoch 60 (Ethiopian), which describes his location being in “Dundayin” (also known as

“Dunudayen”), which is “an invisible desert … east of the garden of Eden” (60:8). The “land of Nod” is located

“east of Eden” (Gen 4:16).

257

belly” (40:16b).

In Bava Batra, God castrated the male Behemoth so the animal could not breed

and endanger the world (b. B. Bat. 74b:7), and so the rationale is he has an increased reserve of

strength because he cannot procreate.

His strength may also be fueled by the level of unnatural

hunger and thirst he possesses. R. Yoḥanan cites, “one thousand mountains grow a variety of

grasses for it” to consume, and R. “Shimon ben Yoḥai taught” that the beast “drinks from” an

Edenic river“ called Yuval” (Jer 17:8).

God has bestowed the Behemoth with physical power and a supernatural countenance,

but he limits his movements and interactions with humans. The Behemoth is represented by

“artistic images of repose and security;” but lives in security where he cannot harm others.

Job

40 ends with discounting the abilities of humans to dominate this animal (40:24), so these

limitations must have still been in effect in Job’s present day.

Leviathan (41:1-34)

The Joban verses on Leviathan are extensive compared to the number of verses on the

Behemoth, containing similar components. The aspects of otherworldliness touched on before

Albert Magnus (d. AD 1280), I. Steinemann, Mitchell, the Targum, the Vulgate, and other writings

phallically identify the Hebrew term for tail (, zǝnāḇo), but Gesenius interprets this term to mean the “end of

something.” In context, the body part is bending, and Davidson sees a correlation between the strength of an animal

being related to the rigidity of the tail; Vicchio, Job, 278; GHCLOT, s.v. “,” 248; I. Steinemann, Le Livre de Job,

LD 16 (Paris, France: Les Éditions Du Cerf, 1955), 198; Stephen Mitchell, The Book of Job (New York, NY: Harper

Perennial, 1994), 126-7; The HALOT identifies  also as a “phallus;” Ludwig Köeler and Walter Baumgartner,

HALOT, rev. ed., vol. 1, trans. M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1994), 274; See also Nicholas

Ansell, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find The(ir Wisdo)m: Behemoth and Leviathan in the Book of Job,” in

Playing with Leviathan: Interpretation and Reception of Monsters from the Biblical World, vol. 21, TBNJCT, ed.

Koert Van Bekkum et al. (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2017), 106-7.

A Rabbinic discussion occurs on whether these creatures were created in pairs in Gen. Rab. 7:4. Based

on the term “Taninim,” which refers to Leviathan, being “written without a yod,” this implies a singular connotation,

according to R. Pinḥas. Others attest God’s consistent pattern of creating males and females for each species. Resh

Laķish confirms that Behemoth had a mate, but that he had been altered and could not procreate, citing Job 40:17;

Whitney, Two Strange Beasts, 130-1.

The word for stream in Jeremiah 17:8 is the Hebrew word yuval; Lev. Rab. 22:10; Whitney notes the

stream, Yuval, is attested as Edenic by “a hymn from the Hodayot scroll” (1QH8:4-7); Whitney, 104-5.

Vicchio, Job, 279.

Gordis, Job, 571.

258

are taken to the next level. This creature is portrayed as being supernatural and contains

similarities to the unnatural nature of Satan depicted in Revelation 12. However, despite

Gunkel’s conclusions, no biblical support exists for them being one and the same. Many modern

scholars believe this to be a mythical creature (Steinemann, Cheyne, Pope, and Longman) and

draw parallels to other extrabiblical creatures (Rahab, Egyptian; Lotan, Ugaritic; Tiamat,

Mesopotamian).

Leviathan is likened to having multiple heads (Ps 74:14) and living in the sea

(Ps 104:25-26) as a fish, a sea serpent, a crocodile, or an amphibious dragon (Isa 27:1).

100

Leviathan is often coupled with Behemoth in scriptures (previously cited) and appears alone in

some ST texts (Apoc. Ab. 10:10; 21:4; Lad. Jac. 6:13).

The forty-first chapter initially focuses on the limitations placed upon mankind, who is

not a match for this incredible creature. The possibilities of man capturing, detaining,

domesticating (41:5), or subjugating (41:4b) him are nonexistent. Further, God warns Job that he

would regret any encounters with Leviathan, implying he would not physically survive (41:8a,

9b), whether he laid a hand on him or caught “sight of him” (41:9b). Adding extra emphasis,

God relays, “No one is so reckless that he dares to disturb him” (41:10).

101

Steinemann asks if these animals are “distractions of a creative power … that is everywhere springing

forth” and “can be found with human suffering?” They were “created by the imaginations of people” and “the author

of Psalm 104 … created Leviathan to amuse himself with it;” Steinemann, Le Livre de Job, 64, 201; Cheyne

believes that Behemoth-Leviathan passages are later insertions. If these creatures are real animals, the descriptions

are “less true to nature” and more so “claim a kinship with … dragons and other imaginary monsters;” Cheyne, Job

and Solomon, 56-7, 94; Pope does not believe that these creatures are comparable to the hippopotamus or a

crocodile, but are “mythical bovine” and “marine monster[s];” Pope, Job, xxi; Longman, Job, 454.

100

Andersen, Job, 309; Longman, 454; Alden, Job, 367; Ash, Job, 336, 339-42; Some ancient writers are

focused on the correlation of Behemoth and Leviathan being the same animal, a dragon, and/or believe he is Satan.

Simonetti and Conti list agreeable commentary provided by Origen (c. AD 185–253), Ephrem the Syrian (d. AD

373), Julian of Eclanum (AD 386–455), and Isho’dad of Merv (c. late eighth to mid-ninth century AD); Simonetti

and Conti, Job, 97, 401-10.

101

Verses nine and ten can be correlated to the divine-human relationship. God has created something so

fierce that lives in the earthly realm and states that the creature should not be challenged. Job has complained and

expressed dissatisfaction about God’s response to him, and perhaps, God is warning him that such behavior is at his

own risk.

259

God attests to this auspicious creature’s natural, supernatural, and unnatural physical

attributes (Table 8.1). He is without natural predators because he has no equal in likeness or

countenance (41:24a, 33a LXX) and is the “king of all that are in the waters” (41:25 LXX).

While some of his traits are supernatural, residing on the extreme edges of nature, other

characteristics are unnatural since there are no known natural representations (41:33a). In some

cases, the physical attributes of Leviathan are generally applicable to the natural world that God

created (noted in parentheses). Yet, the verses may not offer natural descriptions.

Table 8.1: Comparison of Leviathan’s Physical Attributes in the Created Realms

Attributes

Natural

Supernatural

Unnatural

limbs

• strong (v. 12a)

• “mighty” (v. 15a)

• “mighty,” in the sense of being

stronger than fathomable

frame

• graceful

outer

covering

• double-layered (v. 13)

• armored (v. 13b)

• cannot be stripped off (v. 13a)

• cannot be pierced (v. 13b)

scales

• “strong” (v. 15a)

• interlocking; sealed

(vv. 15b-17a)

• cannot be separated (v. 17b)

• impermeable (air-tight) (v. 16)

sneezes

• has nasal passages

and lungs (v. 18a)

• spews and flashes light (v. 18a)

eyes

(applicable)

• bright/glows (v.

18b)

• bright as the dawn (v. 18b)

mouth

(applicable)

• hot breath (v. 19)

• breathes fire (vv. 19, 21a)

nostrils

• hot breath (v. 19)

• smoke goes out (v. 20a)

• hot like steam “from a boiling

pot” or “burning reeds” (v. 20)

neck

• strong

flesh

• “joined together” and

“firm” (v. 23)

• “immovable” (v.23b)

heart

(applicable)

• “firm as a stone”/lower millstone

(v. 24)

underparts

• “like sharp pieces of

pottery” (v. 30)

260

According to modern science, existing sea creatures exhibit similar physical traits and abilities;

however, there is no current natural proof of a flying fish-like dragon.

102

Unlike Behemoth, who may still roam the earth in the confines of an invisible place, the

implications are that limitations are more severe for Leviathan. The strength and mobility he

must possess make him a force with which to contend. He is portrayed as uncontrollable, with an

impenetrable body. God’s questions imply that he has previously restrained the serpent with a

hook and rope (41:1-4). This accentuates the point that only God can subdue him; only he can

keep him at bay until prophecies are fulfilled. Scriptures speak of God destroying Leviathan (Ps

74:13-14; Isa 27:1); however, the passages are prophetic and eschatological announcements.

Jewish thought conveys that these creatures will be preserved for the future (1 En. 60:24).

Creatures of the Future

Behemoth and Leviathan are consistent subjects for debate regarding prophetic and

eschatological references in the Bible and extrabiblical Jewish literature.

103

For the traditional

Jewish sects, prophetic events are of great importance because they are still expecting the Lord to

send the    (mēšîaḥ, meaning “Messiah;” Dan 9:25), as prophesied, and for him to vanquish

102

Sea creatures (fish) and Leviathan share common features, except for necks and breath that escapes from

the mouth and nostrils. Fish breath through gills, and even though holes or indentions are detected and appear to be

nostrils, they do not possess nasal passages and cannot sneeze (41:18). Fish have two-chambered hearts, possessing

“circulatory pumps,” but with “profound differences” from that of mammals; E. E. Kolesnikova, “Anatomical and

Physiological Peculiarities of the Heart in Jawless and Jawed Fish,” JEBP 57, no. 2 (2021): 185-6; Leviathan’s eyes

glow and he has luminous secretions that leave a pathway “behind him” (41:18b, 32). Fish skin is semi-permeable,

they have shiny scales, and emit bioluminescent light or flashes from their bodies due to photophores. Photophores

are light-producing organs, and prevalent in deep-water specimens. Some deep sea creatures also produce “luminous

secretions,” spewed from their bodies as a “defensive strategy.” Only two species of deep-ocean shrimp are known

to have bioluminescent lens, luminous secretions, and “internal” and “dermal photophores;” Stormie B. Collins and

Heather D. Bracken-Grissom, “The Language of Light: A Review of Bioluminescence in Deep-sea Decapod

Shrimps,” Biological Reviews 99, no. 5 (October, 2024): 1-3, 21.

103

As scholarly disciplines, biblical prophecy and eschatology are well-represented in studies on Behemoth

and Leviathan. Prophetic material in this study will be defined as referring to the future, from the accepted time of

Job to before the IP. Eschatological references are considered prophetic, with a focus on the last days or the end of

the world.

261

their enemies (Zech 9). These and other prophecies are also important to Christians, who have

received the good news of the Messiah’s first coming and are awaiting his return. For both Jews

and Christians, these creatures are of great interest.

The Prophetic Demise of Judah

The Joban Behemoth is a strong and powerful beast with the favor and protection of the

Lord’s bestowed power. A plausible secondary reading of the Joban text offers a description of a

beast who is ordained to represent a weakened and rebellious people. These people will lose the

favor of God and face the demise of their nation. The basis for such an interpretation lies in

several key paralleled components:

• The Southern Kingdom of Judah is called “the Behemoth (beast) of the South” in

Isaiah 30:6.

• Wolfers’ translation of Job being bestowed or saddled (40:15a) with the Judean

people fits with his being a God-fearer who converted to Judaism through marriage or

originating belief.

• The only other use of the Hebrew phrase meaning “chews the cud” (41:15b) is for a

prophecy and fulfillment against Nebuchadnezzar. In a confused and isolated state, he

ate grass like an ox. The price of relief was his acknowledgment of God’s powerful

sovereignty (Dan 4:25, 33-34).

• The references to Behemoth’s waist (loins), belly, tendons (sinew) in thighs

(testicles), and tail (penis/testicles) are related to the Jews’ ongoing issues of sexual

immorality to the point of it being a national sin (40:16-17).

• Having a bodily frame of bronze and iron can be a criticism instead of espousing

strength. God criticized the Jews using similar descriptions, such as having a “neck of

262

iron sinew” and a “brow” of “brass” (Isa 48:4), being likened to brass and iron as

“revolters and slanderers” (Jer 6:28), and becoming like “dross” to God, “all of them

being brass and tin and iron and lead” (Ezek 22:18).

• In the same way, as controlling Behemoth requires God to intervene with his sword

(40:19b), he dealt with the rebellious and sinful people of Judah using the swords of

Babylon during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II in 586 BC.

104

The Prophetic Demise of Israel and Judah’s Overconfidence

The associations of Leviathan to the destruction of the Northern Kingdom seem less well-

defined and documented; however, there is a foundation for further exploration of his connection

to Israel and Judah. The “personification” and power “of water” are central themes in Jewish

texts that parallel stories about Yamm, Baal, and Mot in ANE battle legends.

105

Wolfers explains,

Nahar is identified unequivocally as the King of Assyria and his army in the guise of the River

Euphrates. … Behemoth is both Job and Judah, while Leviathan is apparently to be identified with the

Assyrian King, which places him on the same level of reality of Behemoth in his character as Judah.

… The confrontation between the two nations is depicted as a confrontation between two rivers,

Euphrates and Jordan, and two ‘beasts,’ Nahar (Leviathan) and Behemoth.

106

The name Nāhār, meaning river, appears alone or hyphenated in conjunction with other

names of significance like Yamm-Nahar. Yamm (Yām) is referred to as the “zbl ym ṯpṭ nhr,

‘prince Sea, ruler River,’” and “he seems to be the deity of every kind of water” in its many

104

Wolfers discounts Robert Gordis’ claim that the occurrence in Isaiah 30 refers to the hippopotamus in

Job (30:6-18). Gordis sees the two as real creatures in Job’s “present” time, not as mythological animals of the

future; Wolfers, “Second Speech,” 479; Gordis, Job, 571; Ansell “Fantastic Beasts,” 107.

105

The personification of water is represented in the names of ANE cosmogonic gods, such as the “Flood

(Těhōm), Sea (Yām), the River (Nāhār),” and “the sea monsters (Tannin).” The ancient term, Nāhār, means river or

in plural, Nāhārot;” Koert van Bekkum, “‘Is Your Rage Against the Rivers, Your Wrath Against the Sea?’: Storm-

God Imagery in Habakkuk 3,” in Playing with Leviathan: Interpretation and Reception of Monsters from the

Biblical World, vol. 21, TBNJCT, ed. Koert Van Bekkum et al. (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2017),

55; See also F. Stolz, s.v. “River ,” DDD, rev. ed., ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der

Horst (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 707-9.

106

Wolfers, 486-7.

263

forms, according to F. Stolz.

107

This is also used in hyphenated toponyms, like Aram-Naharaim

and Assyria-Nahar.

108

These toponyms generally refer to one of the major areas near the Tigris

and Euphrates rivers, eventually overrun by Assyria in the eighth century BC. The rivers have

significant geographical, historical, and prophetic ties to the Jews.

109

Assyria brought the demise

of Israel over time, beginning with the fall of Damascus in 732 BC (Isa 4:4).

In Isaiah 8:7-8, God poetically foretells Israel’s destruction and highlights Judah’s “over-

confidence,” claiming the “mighty and massive waters of the river,” the “Nāhār” (Euphrates

River, NASB), “–the king of Assyria and all his wealth, and it will overflow all its distributaries

and go over all its banks (CJB). And it will penetrate Judah, overflowing as it passes through, up

to the neck it will reach.”

110

Samaria, the political and religious capital of Israel, fell in 721 BC.

Rashi clarifies the warning of the Assyrian threat, further identifying Jerusalem as the “the main

part of the strength of” Judah’s “neck” (Isa 8:8 CJB). This prophecy was fulfilled in 701 BC,

when Assyria razed and conquered most of Judah, but God intervened to save Jerusalem (2 Kgs

17–19).

Most of the forty-first chapter focuses on the strength, confidence, and bestowed power

Leviathan wields. Information on Leviathan can be contrasted with the history that led up to

Israel and Judah’s demise, using prophetic scriptures (41:22a; Isa 8:8 CJB). He displays his

confidence by not being affected by dismay (41:22b; Jer 30:10). He is “firm and immovable”

107

Stolz, DDD, 708.

108

Ibid.

109

As explained in the geographical and historical backgrounds in Chapter Two, Aram is thought to be one

of the locations for Uz (Rashi) and figures prominently in the post-Flood settlement of Noah’s descendants and the

stories of the Patriarchs. After the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, it seemed almost a certainty that Assyria

would bring destruction to Judah, too; however, the nation virtually disappears, making way for the Beast of the

South, Babylon, to finish what Assyria started.

110

Additional information on the previous footnote and on Judah’s confidence, consult Wolfers; Wolfers,

“Second Speech,” 487; Note that Day believes the “description” of the referent in Isaiah 27:1 to Leviathan is

Babylon, and makes no mention of the role of Assyria; John Day, “God and Leviathan in Isaiah 27:1,” BSac 155, no.

620 (October-December, 1998): 434.

264

because the folds of his flesh are joined together (41:23), and he is resolute in his heart and

impregnable in body (41:23). He is characterized as the most unique thing on earth (42:33a), one

without fear (42:33b), and the “king of the sons of pride” (42:34).

The kingdom of Israel, as a united nation and the covenant people of Yahweh, is unique

among the people of the earth (Deut 7:6; 14:2; 2 Sam 7:23-24). They have had a tumultuous

history and found themselves living separately from each other and still corporately suffering

from sin. They continuously rejected God’s “statues and ordinances,” leading to a false sense of

hope and confidence in themselves and others (e.g., alliance between Kings Jehoshaphat of

Judah and King Ahaziah of Israel, 2 Chron 20:35-37; and Israel’s pleas for help from Egypt to

fight Assyria, 2 Kgs 17:4, 18).

The Eschatological Demise of the Creatures

All the biblical, Rabbinic, and scholarly assertions about the creatures are of little import

to some and confirmatory to others. Nicholas Ansell reminds his readers to “seek to understand

the Behemoth and Leviathan not as creatures that a sovereign Creator uses to put Job in his place

(whether as sinfully proud or as blind to his finitude) but as beings that symbolically disclose …

what it means for humanity to face its fear of God and thus find wisdom.”

111

God’s wisdom runs

deeper than mankind’s knowledge, and his power encompasses all abilities that could be brought

to bear. Behemoth and Leviathan represent his power from the past, which he determined as

good (Genesis 1–2). They may represent his power in the present as real animals that God limits

and controls in preparation for his plans. The future of these creatures is represented in Rabbinic

literature, but the details are somewhat muddled except for God’s power over them. The texts

assert “the absolute sovereignty of God over all his creatures” and this is confirmed through

111

Ansell, “Fantastic Beasts,” 92.

265

commentary and stories about primordial conflict, castration, death, preparation, and

preservation.

112

There are two scriptures cited previously that reference the killing of Leviathan, Isaiah

27:1 and Psalm 74:13-14. The reference in Isaiah 27:1 is considered a prophetic and

eschatological event. Additional events described in Rabbinic literature include hunts for the

creatures, Divine intervention, and a great feast. Job 40:8-9 is used in multiple Jewish sources to

confirm an epic battle between the two beasts at the end of the world (b. B. Bat. 75a:4-6; Vay.

Rab 13:5).

113

Leviticus Rabbah states, “The Behemoth will stab the Leviathan with its horns and

tear it open, and the Leviathan will smash the Behemoth with its fins and stab it to death” (13:5).

Other information concerns hunts conducted by the archangels for Behemoth (Gabriel and

Michael) and Leviathan (Gabriel), neither of which proved successful and end with God

overpowering the creatures (b. B. Bat. 74b:13–75a:1; Pisq. Rab. supp. A 1:5).

114

In contrast,

Psalm 74:13-14 seems to relate to the past. The “creatures of the wilderness” (74:14), paralleling

the “denizens of the desert” in the HB, are related by Jewish scholars (e.g., Malbim, Rashi, and

R. David Kimhi) to the Israelites of the Exodus and associated characters or occurrences in

Egypt at that time).

115

112

Whitney, Two Strange Beasts, 131; b. B. Bat. 74b:6.

113

The end of the world is set apart in the Bible with the use of ‘the day of the Lord” or “in that day.”

Isaiah uses, “in that day” quite often. For example, “in that day,” the people will be rejoicing (Isa 25:8-9), singing

(Isa 26:1), “Yahweh will kill Leviathan” (Isa 27:1), and he will “gather his people” (Isa 27:12); Day, “God and

Leviathan,” 424.

114

Possibilities are that the angels are collecting more than one beast of each kind, or these are not the same

beasts being retrieved, and/or fighting each other. No matter who collects the beasts, God’s intentions are to use

them as food for the faithful; Sefaria, “Pesikta Rabbati, Supplement A,” https://www.sefaria.org/Pesikta_

Rabbati%2C_Supplement_A.1?lang=bi.

115

Malbim views Leviathan’s heads as being associated with the “princes” or “chiefs of Egypt;” Sefaria,

“Malbim on Psalms,” 74:14, https://www.sefaria.org/Malbim_on_Psalms?tab=contents; Rashi states that “Pharoah

is called” by the name of Leviathan and that “money” was given to the Israelites (Exod 12:35-36); Sefaria, “Rashi

on Psalms,” 74:14; R. David Kimhi (1160–1235) is also known as Radak. Radak agrees with Rashi on both counts,

and refers to “food” as “plunder” for the those headed to the Red Sea; Sefaria, “Radak on Psalms,” 74:14,

https://www.sefaria.org/Radak_on_Psalms?tab=contents.

266

William Whitney cites Midr. Alpā Beṭôṭ describing how God intervenes to bring “forth”

Leviathan from “the great sea, which is the mighty deep,” and “slaughters the creature in the

presence of the righteous,” who “rejoice at God’s victory.”

116

Hence, the creation of and possible

conflict between the creatures and God in the primordial setting becomes an eschatological

conflict between them, resulting in a feast of “cattle, fish, and birds” that is attended by the

“ḥabbarim,” meaning, the “Torah scholars, who listen to God’s voice” (b. B. Bat. 75a:4; perhaps

akin to the wedding feast in Rev 19:6-9). This all attests to God being a powerful Creator,

Sustainer, and Provider who is aware of and gets involved in the world, maintaining his

interactions with all creatures.

Contextual Synopsis

The Almighty confirms and offers evidence of his matchless rule over Job’s world by

constructing four arguments that confirm his sovereignty and explain his relationship to the

above and below. His theophanic appearance enhances the effectiveness of his case,

overwhelming Job with the sheer magnitude of his presence. Although the earthly characters

never seem to doubt God’s existence, he desires that Job completely understand the divine-

human relationship.

Comprehending God’s purposeful speeches, how they apply to the characters in the story,

and the broader Jewish context is significantly aided by exploring the Classical Arguments that

help to define God’s existence and provide a foundation for his case for sovereignty. Faith

requires recognition of his existence and matures by increasing knowledge of his ruling roles and

116

Midr. Alpā Beṭôṭ was referenced and commented on by Whitney. This text is not open source but other

sources reference similar content, like Jacobs; Whitney, Two Strange Beasts, 134-140; See Irving Jacobs, Elements

of Near-Eastern Mythology in Rabbinic Aggadah (Oxford, England: Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies,

1977); Irving Jacobs, “Elements of Near-Eastern Mythology in Rabbinic Aggadah,” JJS 28, no. 1 (April, 1975): 1-

11.

267

regal responsibilities; he is the Designer, Creator, and Governor. He is the First Cause, the only

necessary Supreme Being, who ensures that natural and moral order is set in place and

maintained. He is immutable, omniscient, and omnipotent.

Yahweh inversely explains the complex natural and supernatural processes by which he

rules his kingdom through a barrage of rhetorical questions. This demonstrates familiarity with

his grand design. He characterizes the unfathomable relationship between his authority, wisdom,

and power in a genuinely sublime manner in the ancient sense of the word. God accomplishes his

task of broadening the scope of Job’s knowledge and strengthening his faith by confirming his

place in the universe. This is for Job’s benefit and not because there is a sense that God performs

this exercise for his own edification.

Jewish beliefs confirm that he is a God of the past, the present, and the future,

demonstrating multi-layered and multifunctional applications, not only of his work in the world,

but in prophetic and eschatological contexts. The complexity of his will and ways is evident. The

simplicity of some theological concepts shines through, declaring suffering and chaos are present

and active in the world, but righteousness and order will prevail. Job is a righteous and innocent

man who exists in a temporal realm, with unseen supernatural and unnatural influences that

endanger his soul. Justice seemed far away for Job, and in the middle of the storm, God’s person

and presence brought it palpably close. God will fully vindicate and restore Job; the final verdict

is near.

268

CHAPTER NINE: THE FINALITY OF ACCEPTANCE

The sublimity of God’s arguments has overcome the memories of the previous dialogue,

as Job is caught up in a whirlwind of activity, thrust into the depths of God’s reasoning, and

reconsiders his suffering in the context of newly presented evidence.

He is brought to the point

of decision, accepting that life’s disasters descend upon the righteous and the unrighteous,

knowing that the Divine’s sovereignty will supersede any resulting suffering. An overwhelming

sense of finality emerges during the theophany through God and Job’s words and actions. There

is an evidentiary change in how they identify each other. God moves from being unseen to

understood, with the final outcome being Job’s acceptance and his friends’ rejection. Job accepts

how God characterizes him, the value of silence, and the consolation of God’s presence and

instruction. Rebuke, recompense, reconciliation, and restoration are essential themes in the final

declarations of the book. These define the misconceptions of retribution theology, the

insignificance of ethical rightness to God’s person, and the significance of Job as an antitype for

the Messiah.

The Finality of God’s Actions

God presents a strong case for sovereignty in Job 38–41, and the enormity of theological

content within his arguments cannot be fully explained and addressed in this study. The

representations of his authority, wisdom, and power are dynamic, imbued with a sense of

constant locomotion and unlimited mindfulness. Each example’s forthright and concise nature

leaves no room for guesswork, for every detail is delivered with precision and purpose. The

immensity of his presence in the world and the imparting of such knowledge leads to an

The purpose of this chapter is to provide essential background and clarifications on the words and actions

of Job and God during the theophany and briefly address the final scene of the book.

269

overwhelming sense of finality in his actions⎯he rules, creates, achieves, provides, sustains,

decides, punishes, forgives, and restores⎯everything begins and ends with him.

His reign has no finality because he is, was, and will always be, yet finality results from

his sovereignty over the divine-human relationship. Job already sensed this when he responds to

Zophar in chapter twelve. He gives a good example of how the entire essence of God is applied

to every action, and the finality of his decisions is ruled by his encompassing responsibilities. Job

details,

Wisdom and might are with Him; advice and understanding belong to Him. Behold, He tears down,

and it cannot be rebuilt; He imprisons a person, and there is no release. Behold, He restrains the

waters, and they dry up; and He sends them out, and they inundate the earth. Strength and sound

wisdom are with Him (12:13-16).

The Triune God argues his case to expand Job’s understanding of the extent of his

sovereignty. God accomplishes all things with surety; he always makes the right decisions. He

never forgets any promises made, stipulations he puts forth, and scientific laws he commands

because he does not need to acquire or recall knowledge. He is the unlimited repository of all

that can be known. He does not need to discover what will happen because he does not live from

moment to moment, move from location to location, or traverse circumstances; time does not

unfold for him.

There need not be fear of everlasting, irreparable harm for the righteous because his

unfailing motivation is rooted in his omnibenevolence, which is his all-consuming goodness.

God is good all the time. He will sustain the righteous until he issues his final judgment,

including his final rebuke and remedy for the world. The Almighty’s omnipotence supersedes

constraint, yet he chooses to constrain himself within the limits of bestowed freedom and power.

Nothing can undo his will once it is applied. His immutability works in concert with his power,

270

and he will not go against his wisdom because it is infallible. His nature is always consistent

since he does not change.

These tenets shore up Job’s faith in God’s right to rule and distributive actions; however,

he was ignorant of the extensive temporal and everlasting effects of God’s sovereignty on all that

can be known and understood. God’s arguments educate Job accordingly and to the extent

possible, bringing him to the point of decision. John Curtis explains, “Job can either accept the

divine appraisal of the universe and of Job’s place in it, or Job can reject God. There is no middle

ground left for compromise. Confronted by a choice so clearly defined, Job reacts.”

This study

recognizes that Job assumes a posture of acceptance.

The Finality of Job’s Acceptance

Unspoken realities move to the forefront of the final arguments, which Job must come to

understand and accept. The main implication is that what Job wants, God has already supplied

without any divine limitations. He wants God to come to him when God is already present. He

wants the Divine to hear his pleas in person when God already knows them through Job’s heart

and mind. He wants God to save him when he has already ultimately protected Job by securing

his life, ironically using the śāṭān as a savior when the evildoer really wanted a sacrifice.

Job’s Posture of Acceptance

Job’s posture and his past arguments were heavily influenced by his suffering and some

of his perceived inflammatory statements lacked substantive belief on his part. A consistent

The final reaction of Job is one of significant debate. Exploring whether Job responds favorably towards

God or rejects God’s explanations and consolation is outside of the scope of this study. The disagreements in this

debate are somewhat shaped by arguments over Job’s final posture being one of submission or defiance. John Curtis

is a proponent of Job’s rejection of God, and displays some interpretative rigidity. In full agreement, Job is brought

to a final decision; John Briggs Curtis, “On Job’s Response to Yahweh,” JBL 98, no. 4 (1979): 497.

271

theme of trust and hope in God bolstered his search for wisdom despite all that Job was going

through. Peake recognizes this and commends Job and God’s actions, stating,

To trust God when we understand Him would be but a sorry triumph for religion. To trust God, when,

we have every reason for distrusting Him, save our inward certainty of Him, is the supreme victory of

religion. This is the victory which Job achieves. But he can achieve it only as God takes the initiative

and gives him the revelation of Himself.

During the Dialogue, Job expresses the full expectation that God will reveal himself by either

calling out to him or in direct reply to Job’s comments (13:22). He voices his fears, considering

that he would be terrified when that moment comes or that God could “remove his hand from”

him altogether (13:21). His friends urge him to believe that God has already removed his

blessing.

Job’s conclusions continually come back to his faith being built on hope and trust. He

sees God as the one responsible for giving and taking away hope (7:7-22; 19:10; 27:8).

Notwithstanding his fears, his protestations, and his worldly losses, he continually turns back to

God. His posture is one of arguable submission since God “shall act as” God “shall (choose to)

act.”

Job consistently turns toward and expresses his desire to be in God’s presence and

experience God’s direct intervention. His faith and trust inspire his reactions to God’s arguments,

along with his acceptance.

Peake, The Problem of Suffering, 100-1.

The trust that Job places in God is not easily understood by his friends, and they have not achieved this

level of expectation for themselves. Job’s friends claim understanding and see themselves as righteously rebuking

Job as an extension of the confidence God has placed in them to argue on his behalf. They operate under the faulty

conviction that only the wicked experience disaster and punishment. The friends not only lie to Job, but they also

deceive themselves (13:4, 7). Eliphaz tells Job that God does not trust his celestial “servants,” so how can he expect

that men, who come from dust and sin, would enjoy such favor (4:18-19; 15:15-16). Both Eliphaz and Bildad

assume that Job possesses an ethical “emptiness,” placing trust in himself, his worldly possessions, and his position

(15:31; 18:14-15a). Zophar relays that the only way for a sinful Job to restore God’s trust in him is to find hope

through repentance (11:18). Job does not accept their misguided words, describing their arguments as “unjust,”

“deceitful,” and demonstrating partiality (13:7, 8a, 10b).

José Faur, “Reflections on Job and Situation-Morality,” Judaism 19 (Spring, 1970): 222.

272

Job Accepts God’s Identifications (38:1-2; 40:1-9)

At the beginning of the two speeches, God is identified as  (Yǝhōvâ, translated as “the

Lord”), and this is representative of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH or YHVH (38:1; 40:1, 3, 6).

Calling him the Lord speaks to his singularity as the only God, with the term’s literal meaning

being “the existing One.” Harris reminds readers that the use of  harkens back to ancient

times or is employed in the Joban text as an “archaic touch.”

This name speaks to his sovereign

identity as the only existing and sovereign Designer, Creator, and Governor.

In chapter forty, the names of God shift between  in verses one and three to

characterizing-type names in verse two. God refers to and describes himself as   (šaday, “the

Almighty,” being all-powerful (40:2a) and  (eloha, “the true God;” 40:2b).

Later, he refers

to himself as El (40:9, 19). In comparison, Elihu’s speeches (32–37) identify him by seven of the

“nine different names” for God found in the book (El, Eloha, Elohim, Shaddai, Kabbir, Asah,

Pa’al).

God does not identify Job as a theophanic participant by name; however, he uses

characterizations from his perspective. First, God introduces Job rhetorically with the personal

pronoun  (me; “who”) but objectifies him as one who “darkens the divine plan” (38:2), “hides

counsel” (38:2 LXX), and “gives dark counsel (38:2 CJB).

The words counsel and plan are

Harris, “Doctrine of God,” 6.

Vicchio, Job, 270; These terms for God’s identity are the most frequently used in Job, with   being used

30 times (5:17; 6:4, 14; 8:3, 5; 11:7; 13:3; 15:25; 21:15, 20; 22:3, 17, 23, 25-26; 24:1; 27:2, 10-11, 13; 29:5; 31:2,

35; 32:8; 33:4; 34:10, 12; 35:13; 37:23; 40:2) and  being used 41 times (3:4, 23; 4:9, 17; 5:17; 6:4, 8-9; 9:13;

10:2; 11:5-7; 12:4, 6; 15:8; 16:20-21; 19:6, 21, 26; 21:9, 19; 22:12, 26; 24:12; 27:3, 8, 10; 29:2, 4; 31:6; 33:12, 26;

35:10, 36:2; 37:15, 22; 39:17; 40:2). Four times the two terms are used together in the same verse, linking God’s

power to his true and singular identity. Eliphaz (22) and Job (27) use these terms the most; GHCLOT, s.v. “  ,”

806; Ibid., s.v. “,” 49; Of interest, Yahweh (Yǝhōvâ) “occurs only once” in the Dialogue (12:9) and is used by

Job to explain God’s hand in the disasters; T. C. Ham, “The Gentle Voice of God in Job 38,” JBL 132, no. 3 (2013):

530.

Vicchio, 215.

GHCLOT, s.v. “,” 468.

273

synonymous when using the Hebrew term,  ('ēṣā).

Second, he identifies Job as a

“faultfinder … who rebukes” (40:2) and “one who contends and … who argues” (40:2 CJB). Job

is described as a “corrector” or “reprover” with the use of the hapax legomenon,  (yissôr).

Job accepts how God identifies him, later characterizing himself by using “who” (42:3).

Job Accepts God’s Instructions (38:3; 40:1-7)

God’s instructions during the educational discourses of the theophany influence Job’s

posture. In both speeches, God comes across as one who “works in the world according to some

plan, the details of which may not be discernable,” purports Karl Giberson.

A closer inspection

of God’s arguments confirms that he has acted with resolve and foresight in the created order of

the universe, which also attests that his dealings with Job would not be haphazard or forego

purpose.

Therefore, the Divine instructs Job on the posture he should assume to hear his

arguments, saying, “Now, tighten the belt on your waist like a man” (38:3a; 40:7a). The HB and

LXX use the phrase,   ('ězār nā' kǝḡeḇer ḥǎlāṣêḵā), meaning “gird your loins like

a man,” with the Tg. Job using “gird up”

Some scholars relate this phrasing to a militaristic

GHCLOT, s.v. “ ,” 647.

Of special note, the LXX does not include God’s opening interjection (40:1-2) and Job’s first response

(40:3-5). Instead, this chapter begins at 40:6 (40:1 LXX), and then repeats God’s instruction for Job’s loingirding

(40:7; LXX 40:2). As mentioned, there are those that see 40:1-5 as a later addition; however, it is consistent with

Job’s response in 42:1-6.

Karl Giberson, “Chance, Divine Action and the Natural Order of Things,” JIntSt 27, no. 1/2 (Feb 2015):

100.

The specific phrase in the Tg. Job is a slight variation (“gird up your loins, now, like a man”). Alden,

Clines, and Low relate this phrase to several OT parallels (Ezek 12:11; 44:18; 1 Kgs 18:46; 2 Kgs 3:21; 4:29; Job

9:1; Jer 1:17). Low explains Clines’ thoughts on girding as a “masculine activity,” hence the qualifier, like a man,

for “physical activities, such as fighting, running, or traveling.” Low also notes that both men and women girded

their loins for mourning (Amos 8:10); Alden, Job, 345; Clines original article, “Play the Man! The Masculine

Imperative in the Bible,” is no longer available since the topic was developed into a book and released in 2023 by

the same title. The content is referenced but not quoted by Low; Katherine Low, “Implications Surrounding Girding

the Loins in Light of Gender, Body, and Power,” JSOT 36, no.1 (2011): 4.

274

command for readiness, like one preparing for a “battle” or “conflict.”

Alden states that an

ancient man prepares for work by the “gathering of a flowing garment into the belt.”

Using this

repeated statement (40:7a), God puts Job on notice since there is a serious task at hand, and he

should prepare to intellectually and spiritually “wrestle” with it.

There are two distinct lessons to be learned from this instruction. God confirms that Job

can interact with him on a different level than before and is not “unworthy of divine

companionship” and consolation.

He does not wish to alter Job’s posture as a seeker of

knowledge. Instead, he enables him to pursue answers within these revelations that allow him to

live above suffering and not be consumed or defeated by it.

Additionally, God repeatedly tells Job that he is expected to respond and “instruct” the

Divine due to listening to his arguments (38:3b, 4a; 40:1-2, 7b). The Lord already knows that Job

cannot answer his questions, and the extent of shared wisdom will initially overwhelm Job’s

senses. Instead, the Lord’s “pronouncements” will summon Job to work out his answers using

the knowledge that God supplies.

Andersen relays, “For Job the exciting discoveries to which

God leads him bring a giant advance in knowledge, knowledge of himself and of God.”

God partially accepts Job’s lack of response at the end of his first speech. Initially, what

more can Job offer than his silence (40:3-4)? This declaration of silence measures his

comprehension and internalization of the Divine’s revelations thus far. Cupping his hand over his

mouth is touted as a sign of submission or “humiliation before a superior” (40:4b), but

Maimonides extols silence as so much more, explaining,

Low, “Implications,” 4, 23; Lawson, Job, 283, 302; Greenstein, Job, 166; O’Connor, Job, 42.

Alden, Job, 345.

Smick, Job, 234, 284.

Andersen, Job, 289.

Ibid., 288.

Ibid.

275

The idea is best expressed in the book of Psalms, “Silence is praise to Thee” (lxv.2). It is a very

expressive remark on this subject; for whatever we utter with intention of extolling and of praise to

Him, contains something that cannot be applied to God, and includes derogatory expressions; it is

therefore more becoming to be silent, and to be content with intellectual reflection.

Job’s responses follow the same pattern as God’s previous instructions, which were also

preceded by God’s assumed silence posture (Figure 9.1). Job’s reactions and replies are

important to comprehending the educational process and his future relationship with God. Job

can be portrayed as being so overwhelmed and terrified during the theophany that his responses

are assumed to be reactive and vacant of substance. Actually, none of his responses are

meaningless or disconnected from God’s prompting.

Figure 9.1: Patterns Connecting God and Job’s Words

Maimonides, The Guide, 85; See Lawson, Job, 302.

God

Is Job going to “darken”

God’s plan (38:2a)?

Job spoke about God’s

governorship and faulted

him without knowledge

(38:2b; 40:2, 8; 42:3a).

God “will ask” and listen

to Job. Job will “inform/

instruct” him by giving an

answer” (38:3; 40:2b, 7b).

Job is a small part of

God’s plan (38:2) and

“no plan is impossible

for” God (42:2b).

Job should not speak

without knowledge and

understanding (38:3;

40:4-5; 42:3b-c).

Job “will speak/ask.”

God should listen and

“instruct.” Job can give

an answer (42:4-6)

Job

276

Accepting the Significance of Silence (40:3-5)

Job embraces silence for a short time in observance of mourning traditions and then

staunchly rejects it; he cannot remain mute. The grief and despair that is welling up inside him

and being compounded by his friends’ criticism must be released. Now, Job can speak to God

face-to-face and explain how greatly and unduly he has suffered. Yet, he reclaims his silence

because he has measured himself and his situation against the immensity of God’s kingdom. Job

accepts Yahweh’s first arguments (38–39) by declaring, “Behold, I am insignificant” (40:2a),

and he views his predicament as paltry in comparison. Job affirms God’s authority and wisdom

by yielding to it. He had not previously considered the limitations and challenges in the natural

world. Bloom remarks, “Protesting the incommensurable suffering, suffering far in excess of sin,

Job is answered by God who speaks only in terms of the incommensurable.”

During his first speech, God’s silence on the topic of Job’s plight or any human troubles

is noticeable. The only reference to humanity is about a location not inhabited by people (38:25-

27). Robert Moses shares,

God’s speech envisions a universe perfectly functioning without human intervention or engineering.

God describes a universe that runs its course whether or not humans are present to enjoy the benefits

of its natural cycle. … God cherishes and rejoices in creation quite apart from any human interest

therein.

From this, Job may interpret that his person and situation are inconsequential. Despite his

interpretation, Job is significant from God’s perspective, while he is still only a small part of the

universe.

Bloom, Job, 20.

Moses, “Light of the Creation Theology,” 22; In Moses’ quote, he cites a sentence that originates from

Wheeler, “God cherishes and rejoices in creation quite apart from any human interest therein;” See David

Wheeler, “Job 38:1-40:2⎯Rain on a Land where No One Lives, Oxen Who Won’t Plow Your Field,” RevExp 96,

no. 3 (1999), 446.

277

The Divine considers the needs of every creature, placing importance on each process

that sustains them. Mankind is in an elevated position, with bestowed freedom and authority over

other creatures.

God does not always intervene to prevent consequential suffering and bad

things from happening as his ultimate plan unfolds. In parallel, he has measured Job against all

other men and defended him with confidence, and his silence is more about the timing of his

appearance than ignoring Job altogether. Further, the application of justice and the power

wielded by God communicates the limitations of Job’s human position in the face of the Divine’s

unlimited responsibilities.

The Finality of God’s Person

The focus of the wife and Job’s friends is associated with their perception of how God

responds to man, and they theologically connect his person to certain actions. Their view of God

and his relationship with man is primarily consequential, based on the ideas of distributive and

retributive justice. The opposite is true because every evidence that can be seen and understood

by mankind as being linked to God’s presence is indicative of the natural and moral qualities that

comprise God’s person. The earthly characters made their cases for and against the sovereignty

of God without fully understanding and knowing him. Richard Taylor reminds, “Sovereignty is

not only God’s inherent right to rule but also the continuous, unimpeded exercise of that right.”

God’s person is fluid and does not naturally possess divisions outside of named qualities. Man

Schwáb, Clines, and Schifferdecker contend that the focus on nature is a treatise on the fallacy that God

is only preoccupied with mankind, meaning humans are the “chief object of God’s attention.” Schwáb further notes

that God cannot only be viewed as “non-anthropocentric” in the book of Job, since he draws the attention of the

adversary to Job, his “most wondrous creature;” Zoltán Schwáb, “Does the Reader Fear God for Nothing: A

Theological Reflection on the Divine Speeches in Job,” JTS 73, no. 2 (October, 2022), 444-6; David J. A. Clines,

“The Worth of Animals in the Divine Speeches of the Book of Job,” in Where the Wild Ox Roams: Biblical Essays

in Honour of Normal C. Habel, ed. Alan H, Cadwallader (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 104; Kathryn

Schifferdecker, Out of the Whirlwind: Creation Theology in the Book of Job, HTS (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 2008), 2.

Taylor, Theological Formation, 16.

278

can understand what results from his holiness, and in turn, man can become holy. The finalizable

understanding from God’s arguments reveals how Job perceived him before and after the

theophany, shifting his perception from the unseen to the understood.

From the Unseen to the Understood

Job’s knowledge of God must have seemed acceptable to him before he experienced the

calamities and full force of his suffering. He had rejected the gods of his heritage and chose to

believe in Yahweh. What he had learned, taught, and modeled for others began with intuitive

reasoning.

Wiley and Culbertson explain,

Human nature…develops the idea of God through revelation, in much the same manner that the mind

develops a knowledge of the external world through the data of the senses. There are three important

factors united in this knowledge of God, namely, intuitive reason, or the power of immediate insight,

which endows men with a capacity for the knowledge of God; revelation, or the presentation of the

truth to intuitive reason…; and, as a consequence of the union of the two previous factors, the

universal and necessary idea of God.

Even though Job faced the loss of his wealth and his children, he answers his wife by rote

and encourages her to remain true to their shared beliefs. His innate reasoning and cultivated

knowledge of God help to ensure his righteousness. This vulnerable man yearns for the person

and presence of the unseen Lord to console him in his suffering. He wants to understand the

purposes of ethical rightness in the face of retributive beliefs because he cannot reconcile the

two. He reasons that something was unseen and unspoken at work, and speaking directly with

the Almighty was the only realistic and necessary path to understanding.

The Unseen and Unspoken

For the majority of the text, God represents the unseen and unspoken. With him being

superior to man, he is not obligated to speak or give Job an answer; however, a compassionate,

Intuitive reasoning is to know something or make decisions about something instinctively.

Wiley and Culbertson, Introduction, 76-7.

279

trustworthy, and just God addresses Job’s lack of knowledge. Barring his purpose being to crush

Job, he came to uplift and educate him. Therefore, the forthrightness with which God addresses

Job during the final speeches does not need to represent an angry God or one lacking authority to

accomplish these tasks. The tenor at the beginning of the first and second speeches is consistent.

Assuming that God’s speeches are rife with the rejection of Job is summarily based on

him being a sinner and retribution theology. Discontinuity is inserted into the hermeneutical and

exegetical processes by adhering to this harsher interpretation and ignores God’s earliest

commendations of Job (1:1, 8; 2:3). Scholars see a partial resolution “in God’s rebuke and Job’s

confession” (42:1-6), but this points “only to Job’s ignorance” because “in God’s verdict Job’s

moral integrity is confirmed.”

A slightly laxer view purports that God is “not rejecting Job but

rebuking him and humbling him.”

T. C. Ham sees “another way to understand the YHWH

speech functioning within … the book⎯a way that mitigates the intensity of God’s anger,

correlates the humbling of Job (in the poetic sections) to God’s pride” in him “(in the prose

framework), and allows…for a pedagogical opportunity” combined with “consolation.”

God’s constitutional and essential attributes, which he alone possesses and embodies, are

fully reflected in his arguments and his relationship with Job. The attributes of God form the

concepts surrounding his existence and his interactions with humanity. John Feinberg addresses

this necessity, asserting, “Since God’s being is pure spirit and hence invisible, without his

attributes there would be little we could know about God, and it would be difficult to

conceptualize him at all.”

In agreement with Wiley’s three-fold classification of the Divine’s

Moore, “Integrity of Job,” 22; See also Peake, Job, 111; Pope, Job, 290; Dhorme, Job, 1xxxi; Rowley,

Job, 244, 266.

Ham, “The Gentle Voice,” 528.

Ibid.

John S. Feinberg, No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God, FET (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001),

234.

280

natural (absolute and relative) and moral attributes (qualities), one can see that these speak to the

finality of his person, from which comes any divine and human actions that have natural and

moral implications.

When God appears and begins speaking, Job realizes that he had not

anticipated the lack of control he would have over their encounter. God is initiating and

administering a divine case based on his divine posture.

Conceptualizing God’s Posture

The Lord determines and exhibits flawless posture born out of his sovereignty, and his

identifying names help inform his demeanor. Rabbinic “conceptualizations” of how God is

identified in the Torah have specific associations with God’s person and the position from which

he acts.

For example, Elohim seems to “always be related to some order, either physical or

social” and “conforms to specific norms.”

Subsequently, the name is linked “with the concept

of middat had-din,” meaning “Strict Justice,” which is discoverable through “human reason” and

is not associated with acts of mercy and love.

In contrast, God does not hold himself to any

temporal and worldly norms when he introduces himself to Moses as Yahweh, stating,   

   ('êyê 'âser 'êyê; meaning “I AM WHO I AM;” Exod 3:14), and in the HB, he says “I will

be what I will be” (Exod 3:14 CJB). God’s posture in this verse indicates Job’s initial

acknowledgment that God chooses how he acts toward man and reveals himself.

The classification of God’s attributes somewhat varies among scholars. Wiley’s classifications are

employed for the purposes of this discussion. The natural attributes are absolute and relative. Absolute attributes are

spirituality, infinity, eternity, immensity, immutability, and perfection. Relative attributes (also known as “causal”)

are partially based on the omni-traits (e.g., omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience), along with wisdom and

goodness. God’s moral attributes are “directly related to his governance over free and intelligent creatures” and

“cannot be understood without” the “subjective character of man” to which they parallel. These attributes derive

from his holiness (i.e., love, justice, truth, righteousness, grace, and mercy); H. Orton. Wiley, Christian Theology,

vol. 1 (1941, repr. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1952), 320-92.

Faur, “Reflections,” 222.

Ibid.

Ibid., 222; Gen 1:1, 26-27; 2:4; 31:30, 32; 35:2; Deut 10:17; 32:17; Pss 82:1-7; 136:2; Isa 9:6; Josh

22:22; Dan 2:47; 11:36.

281

In comparison, the rabbinical associations for the name Yahweh are the concepts of

“middat ha-raḥamim (The Principle of Mercy)” and “Ahaba (Love).”

Yahweh “is from the Law

of mercy, as it is said. The Lord God is merciful and gentle,” and “Elohim … is from the law of

judgment, which is said” (26:10).

Sifrei Devarim 26:10 further elaborates, “Wherever ‘Yod-keh-

vav-keh (YHVH) is written, the attribute of mercy is intended,” and that “G-d … is merciful and

gracious” (Devarim 3:24; Shemoth 34:6).

God speaks to Job with a straightforward but factual

tone that originates from a place of mercy and love, not from angry judgment. God has already

judged Job as righteous, and he speaks as Yahweh when he makes his recommendation of Job to

the śāṭān (1:8; 2:3). These concepts are supported by scripture and are valuable to the exposition

of other OT passages. The concepts alone do not fully capture the facets of God’s ruling posture

and how its theophanic portrayal enlivens it.

De-conceptualizing His Posture

Yahweh’s love and mercy are not placed on reserve for humanity alone. While he is

above all things and in full command of all things, there is a tenderness in his posture toward all

creation. God’s innumerable tasks are naturally birthed from his righteousness, providence, and

benevolence. Adhering to the harsher interpretation of God’s speeches causes one to miss the

gentler and endearing aspects of Job 38–39, leading to the external de-conceptualizing of his

instructions and declarations in Job 42. There is a sense of admiration and satisfaction in natural

processes from the largest of details to the finest.

He extends dignity through his knowledge of what is good and expects creation to live up

to its full potential while keeping harmony in the natural order. God has purposes for the lapping

Faur, “Reflections,” 222.

Sefaria, “Ramban on Devarim,” 3:24, https://www.sefaria.org/Ramban_on_Deuteronomy?tab=contents.

Sefaria, “Sifrei Devarim,” https://www.sefaria.org/Sifrei_Devarim?tab=contents; Faur, 222.

282

brook as it meanders through the quiet meadow and the ebbing of the tides that answer to the

moon. When he speaks of how he handles the limits of the sea, he says proactively, “Here you

may come.” Despite the limitations, he allows for the beauty, power, and froth of “proud waves”

(38:11). He appreciates the mountains that turn purple at dusk to praise his royalty and green

with the dawn in recognition of their rest. Every characteristic of animals in creation, the opus of

their movements, the symphony of their songs, and concern for their cries are met by a holy God

who takes full responsibility for them. The stars rejoice, and the heavenly hosts gather as a

council with the King of kings. No detail goes unnoticed in his plan, as he sets boundaries that

aim for and achieve goodness, his instructions are clear and unwavering, and he assumes a

posture of enjoyment and satisfaction.

The Spoken and Understood

God repeats his previous instruction for Job to gird up for the second round of arguments

(38:3; 40:7) after Job’s first response (40:3-5). Job’s humility and restraint compel God to push

him further into a deeper self-introspection. God asks, “Will you condemn Me so that you may

be justified” (40:8)? Job’s imagined case against the Divine was to secure a justification for

God’s absence and actions. Job had not thought beyond this to consider the Almighty’s position

when he must administer justice. God also asks him, “Or do you have an arm like God, and can

you thunder with a voice like His” (40:9)? Job remains silent, and neither of them admits his

ignorance a second time nor his weakness in the face of such incredible strength and resolve.

Yahweh then answers, describing the posture and attributes needed to hold the position of

the Divine Judge. The kind of strength that enables Elohim’s decisions are rooted in his limitless

“pride and dignity,” unmatched “honor and majesty,” and unflinching willingness to act against

the “arrogant” and the “wicked” (40:10-11). The same Judge that “humbles” the arrogant,

283

restoring them to holy and proper dispositions, is the same One responsible for punishing the

wicked (40:12-23). If Job were to step into God’s position of distributing justice, he would

assume challenging responsibilities. God’s argument here rebuts Job’s case that claimed the

wicked prosper and are “secure” (12:6) because “God does not pay any attention to” their sins

(24:1-12).

The juxtaposition of Job and God as judges explains that arrogance will be reconciled in

the present, but the judgment of the wicked stretches beyond the confines of time to death and

eternity. The unrighteous will be punished and face retribution by being trampled and imprisoned

for their misdeeds, first hidden by death “in the dust” (40:13a) and then in the place that has been

prepared for them (40:13b).

Gersonides interprets this verbatim; they are imprisoned, or God

wants them “to be killed or buried in the dust” in the “grave.”

Job’s efforts to prove his

innocence and discount God’s abilities to govern justly were in vain because the long arm of God

is the only just authority that can exercise the power needed to back up Job’s claims.

Accepting the Significance of Consolation

By the end of the second speech, God’s arguments convinced Job that there was a ruling

narrative that supersedes his own. He has presented a case that leads the defendant to voice

concessions that indicate he accepts God’s consolation (42:2-6), despite scholarly claims that he

becomes insolent and rejects Divine thought.

Granted, Job’s intuitive reasoning yielded

The interpretation used in the NASB replaces the literal meaning of “imprison their faces” with

“imprison them” (40:13b). Job, as a righteous man, is now face-to-face with God, and so the wicked will also face

God. They will die a physical and spiritual death, and will endure eternal punishment, no longer coming face-to-face

with God, but being hidden from his goodness forever. Rowley supposes this to mean the “dark recesses of Sheol;”

Rowley, Job, 255.

Sefaria, “Ralbag on Job,” 40:13.

Curtis, “Job’s Response,” 497, 505, 507; Tsevat, “The Meaning,” 100, 105; Greenstein, Job, xx, 184;

David J. A. Clines, “The Wisdom of Job’s Conclusion (Job 42:1-6),” in Goochem in Mokum, Wisdom in Amsterdam,

OtSt 68, ed. George J. Brooke and Pierre Van Heck (Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2016), 35, 41-2.

284

statements demonstrating his general knowledge of God’s ways without fully understanding his

place within them. His current predicament in the temporal realm cannot be compared to God’s

natural and spiritual work for all time. In recognizing God’s overarching rule and absolute

sovereignty, Job accepts the rebuke and remedy God puts forth. His concessions are declarations

that confirm his current state of mind and his heart.

Further, the thematic imagery of the prophetic and eschatological revelations about

Behemoth and Leviathan would warn Job about the precarious position of the righteous. The

wonderous nature of creation, with all its endowed and bestowed freedoms, does not hold eternal

positions that guarantee God’s continued providence toward them. These extraordinary beasts

are the finest and most potent examples of the animals of the land and sea. God’s people were

meant to be the finest example among all peoples, to serve as a witness of his goodness and

power to the world. Job is the finest man in all the earth. All have proven to be a danger to

themselves and drawn toward folly.

Relying upon their knowledge and strength is unwise, may prove fatal, and contribute to

isolated positions. Behemoth and Leviathan prove to be a danger to man and will later be a

danger to each other. God preserves them, unseen by the rest of creation until the day of their

great battle and the feast of the righteous. God defends his people time and time again; they fail

him repeatedly and eventually lose possession of their land. Although, their birthright will be

preserved until they are gathered to fulfill their destiny. Job’s greatest danger is from himself and

not his affliction or suffering. God preserves Job to equip him as an example for even greater

things to come, as he will sit in judgment, ushering in forgiveness and reconciliation for his

friends.

285

Does Job fully understand how the powerful arm of God extends beyond his current

situation with a prophetic and eschatologically driven agenda? Whether he does or not, he

understands the sovereignty of God is unfathomable, incommensurable, undeniable, and

unobtainable, and this consoles him. Job rejected the consolation of self and of men, seeking the

comfort that only God can supply, declaring that he is “consoled in dust and ashes” (42:6b CJB).

Final Declarations (42:1-17)

The final declarations of God and Job bring the story to a close, organizing the final

themes in terms of rebuke, recompense, reconciliation, and restoration. God’s “gentle” but firm

voice, as a providential carer (38–39), gives way to the voice of a discerning Judge of the past,

present, and future (40–41). The lamenting Job (3) issues his first response, lacking confidence,

and becomes a fully consoled Job who is empowered by new knowledge. “Job declares that he

has found a new understanding of God, compared with which his former knowledge was” but

“rumour,” and now is “compared with sight,” Rowley deduces.

The “climax of the book”

covers the informative response of Job (42:1-6), the final verdict, and the final actions of God

and Job.

Job’s Response (42:1-6)

Job’s response begins with a declaration of full acceptance of God’s sovereignty (40:1-2).

God’s authority, wisdom, and power ensure that “no plan is impossible” for him (42:2) or

“design is restrained from” him (42:2 CJB). In repeating God’s earlier characterization (38:2),

Job accepts that he is the one “who” spoke from a place of ignorance (42:3). Job is not saying

that he now knows and understands all that can be known, precisely not. Rashi relays that Job

Rowley, Job, 265.

Ibid.

286

confirms previously that everything was “in” God’s “hand to do, and that Job spoke of his

mighty deeds” from the knowledge he possessed at the time.

This is an honest concession for

Job, but using it to justify claims that he is repenting from previous sins and as a blasphemer

takes the interpretation too far. Vicchio notes that some “critics assume that everything that takes

place in God’s universe ought to be explained to humans; but, perhaps, there may be some things

that people are not meant to understand, for we are not God.”

Despite criticism of and disagreement over Job’s response, this study views his

declarations as a defining moment of absolute physical, mental, and spiritual surrender to God’s

encompassing set of revelations. He realizes that his situation was not about God’s inability to

rule; it was not about morality or the ethical behavior of God. He must reconcile what he knew

before the theophany (“heard of You;” 40:5a) and what he has now experienced for himself (“my

eye sees You;” 40:5b) to his arguments for and against God’s righteous rule. Of his declarations

(42:1-6), the last one demonstrates that he has conceded his ignorance as a demonstration of his

acceptance, stating, “Therefore, I retract, and I repent sitting on dust and ashes” (42:6).

Vicchio provides a comprehensive table of translations of 42:6 from modern scholars and

discusses contemporary views about whether Job repents.

Again, adhering to a strict

interpretation of unrepentance and dissatisfaction limits the holistic nuances of Job’s statement.

In several translations, the first verb in the verse (i.e., “retract;” NASB) has a direct object upon

which to focus this action. The direct objects are associated with his person or his words. The

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 42:3-4.

Vicchio, Job, 294; Vicchio highlights the interpretations that claim Job is frustrated and “fed up” with

God’s explanation (Curtis, Greenstein) and yet, Elie Wiesel believes that “he should not have given in so easily”

(Elie Wiesel); See also Curtis, “Job’s Response,” 499-500; Greenstein, Job, xx, 184; Cf. Elie Wiesel, Messengers of

God: Biblical Portraits and Legends, trans. Marion Wiesel (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2013), 234.

Vicchio, 294.

287

direct translation from the HB does not and lists his two actions in direct succession, as opposed

to the LXX and 11QtgJob, which insert an object for the verb.

In the HB, Job states,        ('al kēn 'em'as vǝniḥamtî); the Qal tense

corresponds to many of the translations for the first verb of the verse (42:6). If Job truly loves

and wants to honor God, he will feel “sorry” (Franz Delitzsch) over his past conduct, possibly

“despise” (James Moffatt, Rowley, Samuel Terrien, Simundson) and “abhor” (S. R. Driver,

Freehof) himself or his words.

Reasonably, he will deduce that he has not spoken correctly and

will want to “retract” (Fredericton, Habel), “revoke” (Georg von Ewald), “repudiate” (Robert

Watson, Driver, and Gray), “recall” (Morris Jastrow), and “recant” (Pope) his testimony and

accusations.

The fifteen scholars from Vicchio’s table all agree on the translation of the meaning of

the second verb,       (vǝniḥamtî), as “repent.” Of 108 uses of  (nāḥam), the primitive root of

vǝniḥamtî, 53 percent refer to the meaning of comfort/console, and 38 percent of interpretations

are translated to repent.

In comparing these occurrences in the OT, only once do the two

For additional information on comparisons of 11QtgJob, see Sung Jin Park, “The Text and Translations

of Job: A Comparative Study on 11QtgJob with Other Versions in Light of Translation Techniques,” JESOT 2, no. 2

(2013): 165-90.

Franz Delitzsch, Delitzsch on the Book of Job, vol. II, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library Fourth Series,

vol. XI, trans. Francis Bolton (Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark, 1866), 381; James Moffatt, The Old Testament: A

New Translation, vol. II, Job–Malachi (London, England: Hodder and Stoughton, 1924), 35; Rowley, Job, 266;

Samuel Terrien, “The Book of JOB,” in IB, vol. 3, eds. Buttrick et al. (New York: Abingdon Press, 1954), 1193;

Driver, Job, 127; Freehof, Job, 259.

Vicchio, Job, 294; Habel, Job, 575; Upon further study, von Ewald uses the term “revoke,” instead of

“recant” in the original printing of his commentary. Vicchio cites from a reprinting by Wipf & Stock (2004); Georg

H. A. von Ewald, Commentary on the Book of Job with Translation, trans. J. Frederick Smith (London, England:

Williams and Norgate, 1882), 312; Robert A. Watson, The Book of Job, ExpB, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (New York,

NY: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1892), 400; Morris Jastrow, The Book of Job: Its Origins, Growth and Interpretation

(Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1920), 364; Pope, Job, 288.

Comfort/console: Gen 5:29; 24:67; 27:42; 37:35; 38:12; 50:21; Ruth 2:13; 2 Sam 10:2-3; 12:24; 13:39;

1 Chron 7:22; 19:2-3; Job 2:11; 7:13; 16:2; 21:34; 29:25; 42:11; Pss 23:4; 69:29; 71:21; 77:2; 86:17; 119:52, 76, 82;

Ecc 4:1; Isa 12:1; 22:4; 40:1; 49:13; 51:3, 12, 19; 52:9, 11; 57:6; 61:2; 66:13; Jer 16:7; 31:13, 15; Lam 1:2, 9, 16-17,

21; and 2:13; Repent: Gen 6:6-7; Exod 13:17; 32:12, 14; Num 23:19; Deut 32:26; Judg 2:18; 21:6, 15; 1 Sam

15:11, 29, 35; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chron 21:15; Job 42:6; Pss 90:13; 106:45; 110:4; 135:14; Jer 4:28; 8:6; 15:6; 18:8,

10; 20:16; 26:3, 13; 26:19; 31:19; 42:10; Ezek 24:14; Joel 2:13-14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:9-10; 4:2; and Zech 8:14.

288

interpretations appear in the same chapter (42:6, 11)⎯the first appearance is translated as repent,

and the second is the act of comforting and consoling. Could not Job claim he was sorry and

unsettled in his emotions about his words and actions and now finds himself wholly comforted

and consoled as he is “sitting on dust and ashes?”

Following the onset of his illness, Job’s original physical position was him “sitting in the

ashes” (2:8). Forty chapters later, the reference is more about his state of being than what he is

doing (LXX; 11QtgJob). William Morrow conducted a philological comparison of 42:6 and

considers the “final clause” of “dust and ashes” as a gloss from 30:19.

In this verse, Job’s

perception is that God “has thrown” him “into the mire, and” he has “become like dust and

ashes” (30:19). In the grand scheme of all that exists under God’s rule, he may now still be

affirming his insignificance and equating himself to nothing more than dust and ashes. Either

way, he cannot hold God to the description of one who spends his time doling out punishment

for misdeeds and ignoring suffering in the world as a matter of prescribed ethical standards.

Accepting the Insignificance of Ethical Rightness

Job is truly humbled, and he wishes he had possessed this wisdom before so that he could

speak appropriately about God. His intuitive reasoning, knowledge of God through oral tradition,

and accepted Jewish practices were insufficient. The result is to understand that God operates in

the grand scheme of the world amorally as the functions are set in place for its governance.

Jewish thought later dictated that the “kingdom” of God was brought about “solely by divine

agency⎯as something which did not depend upon the moral endeavors of men.”

The partial

purpose of wisdom literature is to “intellectualize morality;” thereby “reducing virtue to terms of

William Morrow, “Consolation, Rejection, and Repentance in Job 42:6,” JBL 105, no. 2 (June, 1986):

213.

Arthur O. Lovejoy, “The Origins of Ethical Inwardness in Jewish Thought,” AJT 11, no. 2 (1907): 229.

289

knowledge, and of proving that the bad man was also in some sense a fool.”

The ethical

treatment of others directs how justice is distributed, whether by man, God, or intuition. This

implies that any commensurate activity or judgment from God directly relates to the activities of

men.

Job accepts that only God can adequately administer justice, and the idea that justice is

randomized according to the notions of men is inaccurate. He understands that bestowed

freedoms foster a “relational mutability” in God due to humanity’s sinful dispositions; however,

this is only done in alignment with “God’s immutable character and essential nature” that is

encapsulated within his overall plan.

Retribution theology is man’s answer to the randomization

of the moral attributes of God that are identified because of the corruption present in the world.

Rebuke and Recompense (42:7-17)

A transition occurs after the theophany ends and God issues a rebuke, but it is not the

predicted and expected rebuke of Job.

The shift of Job’s portrayal as a privileged and prideful

sinner who feigns righteousness only to receive the rewards of the faithful to a divinely

exonerated, righteously elevated, and restored man is drastic. God unabashedly rebukes the three

friends in a message delivered to Eliphaz (42:7).

He does so with restoration on his mind as he

Lovejoy, “Ethical Inwardness,” 233.

Relying on Ware’s words, Peckham asserts that God does not change his “character and essential

nature;” John C. Peckham, The Doctrine of God: Introducing the Big Questions (London, England: T&T Clark,

2020): 40; Bruce A. Ware, God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith (Wheaton,

IL: Crossway, 2004), 113-4.

A literary shift occurs when the theophany ends at 42:6, changing from poetry back to the prose of the

Prologue at 42:7; Vicchio, Job, 295.

The absence of any reference to Elihu in God’s rebuke could mean that Elihu’s warnings of the danger of

Job’s pride were legitimate and could have resulted in chastisement from God. Also, Elihu may not be included in

the rebuke (42:7) because his participation reflects righteous intentions that form a truthful presentation of God’s

person. For those who believe that the “Elihu” speeches were not original and not recorded by the same author, this

is proof that Elihu did not exist or ever interact with Job. On the other hand, the T. Job supposes that the three

friends were pardoned because of Job, and the ire of God was focused on Elihu. Subsequently, no provision was

made for his recompense, and “his remembrance among men” was erased (T. Job 10:12b-16). The T. Job’s

suppositions are clearly different than the MT.

290

issues a four-fold recompense for Job, completely and holistically restoring him and rewarding

his faithfulness. Job is showcased as a Messianic figure, serving as an anti-type of Jesus Christ.

Rebuke and Reconciliation (42:7-9)

God elevates Job through the private and public humiliation of being branded a sinner by

rebuking Job’s friends and reconciling them through Job’s intercessory actions. In 42:7, God is

more than just annoyed with Job’s friends; he views their words and actions as sinful. So much

so, that the word “wrath” is used instead of anger, which implies that God is angry enough to

move forward with some form of vengeful act against the men (42:8). The LXX comes straight

to the point, with God saying to Eliphaz, “Thou has sinned, and thy two friends; for ye have not

said anything true before me, as my servant Job” (42:7). Instead of retributing their folly through

the facilitation of punishments, the opportunity for repentance and reconciliation are extended

for Job’s “sake” (42:8 LXX) and in “favor” of him (42:8 CJB). Fortunately for them, they do not

come face-to-face with the retributive God they described, who levies targeted and expeditious

retribution. Instead, mercy and compassion come through Job’s intercessory prayer over the

required sacrifices.

Job serves as an advocate and mediator, imploring God to forgive them on

their behalf. His righteousness makes a way for restored relationships between them and God.

Job is considered to be an anti-type of Jesus Christ because of this vivid portrayal.

Without performing a line-by-line comparison between the two, there are some apparent

correlations. Job and Jesus were righteous in the eyes of God (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3; Isa 53:10; 1 Pet

2:22). Consequently, both served in the aforementioned roles here on earth, and Jesus continues

The MT, LXX, the Vulgate, Tg. Job, and T. Job all agree on the salvation of the friends and lack of

retribution for the sake of Job. There is disagreement on who offered the sacrifices. Job offered the sacrifices and

prayed, just as he had done for his deceased children, in the T. Job (10:10-11) and the LXX (42:8); however, the

men offer their own sacrifices which then Job prays over in the other four translations.

291

to mediate for mankind at the right hand of God. Both were burdened by perceived shame (8:22;

10:15; Heb 12:2) and holistically suffered for their belief in God, with moments of feeling

abandoned (19:7-9; Matt 27:46; 1 John 2:2). Additionally, both claimed they would see God

after they suffered (19:25-27; John 20:17).

Four-Fold Recompense and Restoration (42:10-17)

Despite what Job endured, “the Lord accepted Job” (42:9b), and a four-fold recompense

was offered and bestowed on Job as a means to fully vindicate and restore him holistically

(physically, socially, mentally, and spiritually). Though the scripture does not explicitly address

Job’s illness, one would expect that he was miraculously healed since he lived for another 140

years (42:16; 170 years, 42:16 LXX). Whether by his first or second wife, Job fathered seven

sons and three daughters; however, the HB doubled the number of sons to fourteen (42:13 CJB).

Rashi interprets   (šiḇ'ānâ) to mean that the number of sons “were twice seven, two sevens,”

like the doubling of weeks in Leviticus 12:5 (; šǝḇu'ayim, meaning “two weeks”).

Job

displays his gratefulness for his daughters by affirming and elevating their stature by providing

them “inheritances” (42:15).

Job’s mental, social, and financial outlook significantly improved. The consolation he

sought from family and his “previous acquaintances” (42:11 HB) was complete. A great feast

was held at his house, where everyone “sympathized with him for all of the adversities that the

Lord had brought on him” (42:11). This indicates that he was restored socially, with their

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 42:13.

292

sympathies also translating into individual gifts of “a piece of money, and … a ring of gold.”

This financial gain was combined with the replacement and doubling of his livestock (14,000

sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys; 42:12).

Contextual Synopsis

Following the presentations of God’s arguments, the importance of looking at the

emergence of acceptance as a theme cannot be understated. The final words and acts of God and

Job indicate inaccurate perceptions that Job forms about himself and the Almighty. The

theophany unfolds according to God’s person, posture, and perception of Job. Job did not expect

this, and his previous posture adapts to the tone that God sets through his identifications and

instructions. The ongoing themes of silence, consolation, and ethical rightness continue in Job

42, with a final delineation separating morality and ethics from the other two.

The final verdict is delivered, and God and Job make declarations that usher in God’s

plan to remedy Job’s situation. God declares Job innocent, holistically restores him, and

vindicates him with his friends. He shows mercy and allows Job to advocate and mediate for

them, providing a path for their spiritual reconciliation with the Almighty. Job is convinced of

God’s sovereignty and understands his place in the world, knowing that God’s rule will

ultimately supersede suffering and that his justice is eternally assured.

Each person gave Job a     (qǝśîṭâ), which is only used in two other places in the OT (Gen 33:19; Josh

24:32). This action supplies further “evidence that Job lived in the patriarchal age” due to the ancient, documented

use of this term. The rings of gold were worn by both men and women (women in the nose and ears and only in the

ears by men). This is reminiscent to the restoration of the Israelites to a free people in Exodus. Before their departure

from Egypt, the very people that had held them captive gave them a fortune in “articles of silver … and gold, and

clothing” (Exod 12:35-37). The Lord had commanded the Israelites to ask, and he made the Egyptians sympathetic.

Certainly, this brought consolation and reward to the Israelites for their years of servitude. In other words, they did

not walk away empty-handed for their suffering. In concert with this, Vicchio mentions that the literal meaning of

“‘restored to fortune’ in v. 10 is translated as ‘turned the captivity’;” Vicchio, Job, 296.

293

CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSION

This dissertation aimed to use a midrashic form of exposition to investigate the Joban

arguments concerning God’s sovereignty within the context of ancient views. The two primary

views that consistently shaped the exchanges between the characters, directly and indirectly,

were divine retribution and the problem of human suffering. Other concepts that highlighted the

multifunctional nature of the text and complemented the investigation were the ancient views on

theocracy, God’s role in the divine-human relationship, and the origin of evil and suffering in the

world. Defining and investigating these components drew immediate attention to five research

questions and revealed a three-fold contextual problem during the literature review.

The volume of available literature on Job is indicative of the impact that the book and its

main characters have had on a diverse audience in the broader context of themes like patience,

mercy, love, faith, and the punishment of sin. Ample literature individually dissected these and

other themes by correlating aspects of God’s sovereignty (creation, nature, justice) and the

ANE’s influence (geography, history, culture, religions). The literature did not cohesively

address that: (a) the interchanges between God and the śāṭān were about challenging God’s

person and position; (b) the divine and human characters’ origins, identities, postures, positions,

and dispositions determined the receptivity and application of the principal foci to the meanings

of the text; (c) the proofs of God’s existence were intertwined within the arguments, especially

God’s monologue (38–41); and (d) these and other gaps led to the influence and insertion of

underlying context that contributed to or circumvented the interpretation of God’s sovereignty.

The research strategy inductively informed the layout of the study, methodically

unfolding with the introduction of broader contexts involving the setting of the story, the

characters, and the previously mentioned gaps. The sections and headings followed the literary

294

and thematic structure of the book. They steadily progressed using a cycle of identifying,

exploring, comparing, and contrasting applicable content that supported the overriding theme of

sovereignty. This emergent pattern of investigation, in addition to the use and adaptation of a

flexible method of study, enlivened the broader inspection of perceived gaps and facilitated a

deeper engagement with unfamiliar Jewish texts.

The research results will be summarized by reviewing the findings associated with the

research questions and the identified contextual problem. The results have been classified into

three sections: (1) The foundations for exploration will review the general contextual information

and the origins and identities of the celestial characters (Chapters Two, Three, and Five); (2) The

exploration of the arguments of the śāṭān and earthly characters will be discussed under the

headings of culpability and innocence (RQ 1–4; Chapters Four, Six, and Seven); and (3) The

final acceptance and confirmation of God’s sovereignty will elucidate on God’s arguments, his

and Job’s responses during the theophany, the final verdict, and additional outcomes (RQ 1–5;

Chapters Eight and Nine). The significant implications of the findings will be summarized in

each section. The final discussions of this chapter will consider limitations, the contributions of

the methodology, benefits and beneficiaries, and the personal impact of conducting the study.

The Foundations for Exploration

Exploratory exercises revealed significant data that directly supported Job as a historical

person, the śāṭān as a real villain, and God as the only sovereign in the universe. The applicable

interdisciplinary analyses and the investigation of the origins of the divine and human characters

laid the foundation for the greater exploratory topics in the Joban text. Focusing on six major

disciplines provided a wealth of background information that was linked to seemingly

295

unconnected topics and interpretive issues. The researcher followed a research strategy that

addressed and mitigated the contextual problem.

Contributing Background Analyses

In Chapter Two, various constructive analyses made a strong case for Job being a

historical figure uniquely positioned in society and the vast land of Uz. The geographical and

genealogical analyses legitimated the existence of Uz through connections to Noah’s post-flood

descendants and their prevalence among the bǝnê qeḏem (children of the East). Their geographic

settlement of distant lands connected Job to the geneses of two ancient men named Uz. Either

could have served as the original namesake for the region. The proliferation of Noah’s

descendants across the Levant (to the East) and into the far reaches of Persia (to the West) was a

testament to the greatness attained by Uz. The genealogical ties connected Job’s life to the time

of the Patriarchs and pointed to him as a predecessor of Moses. This information did not

conclusively identify whether Job was a convert to the Jewish faith or a Jew.

The mystery of Job’s history was an expected part of investigative readings, which did

not discount his existence. Jewish and Christian sources either confirmed or denied this, but

adequate positive confirmations were found in the Bible and Rabbinic literature (Ezek 14:14, 20;

Ja 5:11; b. B. Bat.15a:15; 15b; b. Sanh. 106a:4; y. Soṭah 5:6:2; b. Soṭah 11a). Disputes have

continued to drive the debate in modern times (Longman, Wilson, and Andersen); however,

ample sources favored the legitimacy of several Joban characters, along with the possible

authorship of the book by Moses, Solomon, and Ezra.

This study leans toward the authorship of

Moses since he could have heard Job’s story firsthand when living in Midian.

Longman, Job, 24; Wilson, Job, 14; Andersen, Job, 69, 83; Hartley, Job, 18-9; Gertoux, “The Book of

Job,” 3; Boloje and Groenewald, “Yahweh’s Sovereignty,” 6; Wogman, “Author of Job,” 23-5.

Gertoux, 6, 9.

296

The absence of common historical markers did not wholly discount the book’s

authenticity. The literary analysis highlighted a complex structure that relies on common

Pentateuchal themes like creation, nature, and the legal motif. Incomplete analyses of the book’s

structure and the various layers of context and meaning can prevent the finer points from shining

through. Diverse textual comparisons (MT, LXX, Vulgate, DSS, Tg. Job, T. Job, Apocrypha,

pseudepigrapha, and ANE literature) revealed commonalities unique to Judaism and

linguistically tied to the Hebrew language. The number of hapax legomena and other literary

distinctions in the text found no comparisons that conclusively legitimized the book’s placement

within the canon, and this reinforced the claims of an earlier composition than the times of

Solomon and Ezra.

The geographical, genealogical, historical, and literary analyses culminated in a myriad

of facts and suppositions that worked in concert with the theological emphases in Job. The

theological influences brought about through oral tradition, patriarchal connections, and pre-

Israelite faith and practices were combined with other details to confirm a consistent belief in the

existence of the one true God. This discounted the underlying context of suppositions related to a

Jewish appropriation of the Divine and human characters and storyline from external sources but

did not discount any influence on the depiction of ANE gods and the ancient views of evil.

The heavenly and earthly characters’ adherence to God’s dominant rule over the heavens

and the earth led to certain analytical conclusions. First, it was determined that sovereignty

serves as a theological framework that recognizes God’s supremacy and the convening of a

theodicy that vindicates his divine goodness and justice in the face of human suffering. Second,

the presence of evil in the world is the true source of suffering and is perpetrated by satanic

activity. The implications applied to the Joban story showcased God’s superiority and the

297

theocratic nature of his relationship with mankind, as evidenced by Job’s suffering and the work

of the śāṭān.

Origins and Identities

Isolating the origins and identities of the story’s heavenly characters (Satan, the śāṭān,

and God) increased the clarity of their roles and relationships with each other, Job, and humans

in general. Chapter Three defined the rise and development of Satan in Judaism to determine that

the śāṭān in Job was a distinct character, separate from the NT Satan. The discovery of satanic

influences in the OT identified divine and terrestrial beings that were motivated independently or

by God. Four of the nine OT references to śāṭāns were divine in origin, and the rest were human.

Biblical, midrashic, and linguistic comparisons were integral to defining the adversarial roles that

led to Satan’s prominence in the NT and eschatology.

The prevalence of dualistic systems represented in ANE, Jewish, and Christian writings

required the investigation of tensions between good and evil, heaven and earth, and God and

Satan. The demonology of the ANE and related texts, external to the Tanakh, and the emergence

of pluralism spurned an elevated role for Satan, making him equal in power and authority to God

(dualism). Examples of external ANE gods from historical texts, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh,

the Enūma Eliš, and the Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, showed that mythical, divine beings

were pitted against humans, and they acted independently; humans had little recourse and

protection.

Reviewing and studying a variety of texts cemented that the ancient Jews saw God as the

originator of evil and not Satan, based on oral directives that were recorded and reinforced in

Jewish writings (Isa 45:7; 1 Chron 21:1; 1Q3:13–4:15; y. Ber. 9:5). Later depictions of evil,

represented in the countenance and actions of a singular character, post-dated Job’s lifetime.

298

Satan emerged during the Intertestamental and ST periods as the central evil figure. This did not

imply that Satan, defined as a fallen son of God, did not exist before Job’s time. Changing to a

proper noun to refer to Satan in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic texts were indicators of rapid

development. The intersection of pseudepigraphic and apocryphal works perpetuated the NT

persona of Satan as the chief instigator and leader of demonic forces. This implied that he

became the epitome of Jewish representations of evil that described him as a trickster, an

adversary, an accuser, and a stumbling block to mankind.

In contrast, the discussion on the origin and identity of God in Chapter Five dispelled the

supposition that Yahweh originated and developed from the Canaanite god, El. The plethora of

gods in the West and East Semitic belief systems featured prominently in applied scholarly

contexts. The conclusions of some modern scholars that the biblical presence of names

associated with El signals that Yahweh and El were the same god were discounted.

The study

conceded that similarities in phrasal names indicated the possible merging of the two identities

for some populations. In disagreement, these Semitic phrases’ linguistic constructs and meaning

indicated the godly characteristics expected of a supreme being, not an indicator of multiple

deities.

A variety of employed investigative methods and correlations between ancient sources

revealed similarities between Yahweh and El; the more significant number of noteworthy

dissimilarities confirmed their separateness. Defining the parameters of God’s existence,

personality, and behaviors were prevalent considerations when comparing him to prominent

divine representations (e.g., El, Baal, and Marduk). The real affirmation of his existence and

divine superiority must come through faith and trust.

Smith, The Origins, 142-4; Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 433; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 60-75; de Moor, The

Rise of Yahwism, 310-369.

299

Summary of Foundational Implications

Overall, the foundational context of the book of Job requires identifying and exploring

baselines that undergird its authenticity, historicity, and legitimacy as the Word of God. This

study’s high-level connections and conclusions are diminished if Uz is an imaginary land, the

characters are not real, and Yahweh is not sovereign. The interpretation of the proffered

arguments for and against God’s sovereignty shows that he rules above and beyond Job’s

situation of suffering regarding his administration of the universe. He is not a God who is far off,

disconnected from mankind, and unconcerned about the wellbeing of creation. He is a holy and

just ruler who prompts the need for morality and rightness in a world compromised by the

presence of evil.

Discounting the provided background information in 1:1-5 and the existence of the Joban

characters has profoundly affected how the principal foci are interpreted in modern and

contemporary circles. The availability of ancient texts and artifacts, along with information from

advances in other scholarly disciplines, legitimizes the book’s reliability. Still, these were only

available to philosophers, theologians, and Jewish and Christian scholars after the nineteenth

century.

Modern and contemporary scholars need to recognize the importance of the Jewishness

of the text and the value of a multidisciplinary approach. The geohistorical relationship

supported by the genealogical tracing of generations from Noah forward implies and reinforces

the authenticity and historicity of the book. The eponymic considerations that identify

connections to the land of Uz and Joban characters, along with geographical indicators, support

inferred and implied historical markers. In a literary sense, Andersen’s balanced and layered

structure emphasizes a coherent composition that demonstrates the multifunctional nature of the

300

text. The layers support a consistent literary interpretation that begins and ends with God’s

sovereignty.

Any theological conclusions that result in expanding knowledge concerning God’s

rule and role in the universe derive from knowing he has no origin, and his sovereignty includes

the above and below. Any earthly representations of divine beings, satanic figures, and Satan

himself only mimic God’s person and actions.

Prominently, the book of Job declares that God rules through divine justice, balanced

with his impeccable judgment, and he consistently achieves and maintains perfect righteousness.

The comparison of the aforementioned gods serves only to affirm God’s position as the only God

because all depictions demonstrate their flaws and imply limitations that are laid bare in ANE

literature.

The depictions of the various satans in biblical and extrabiblical Jewish and Christian

texts reinforce that the worth of Job’s blamelessness went beyond human circumstances. The

approach to exploring the foundational context laid the groundwork for enhancing the

understanding of sovereignty despite the natural boundaries of humanity’s limited knowledge.

Exploring the Arguments

The biblical arguments for and against the sovereignty of God centered on culpability and

innocence and addressed the first three research questions (Figure 10.1). The Prologue placed

the blame upon the śāṭān as a dark force and exonerated God. At the same time, the Dialogue

investigated God and Job’s culpability and the Divine’s right to impose punishments based on

Job’s supposed sins. In addition, the question of who was to blame for Job and his wife’s

Andersen, Job, 23-7.

The main justification for this statement is the documented practice of divine abandonment in the ANE,

which is indicative of the described deities’ discontinuity as rulers and disconnectedness from their human subjects.

The depictions of false gods of ancient religions in the Bible are also portrayed as inadequate and disengaged,

unable to affect documented change; Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions, 203-6, 236; Yang, “The Presence and

Absence,” 187-8, 193.

301

disastrous situation was consistently at the forefront of the dialogic exchanges, placing them

under God’s authority since he rules over all things.

Figure 10.1: Research Questions 1–3

Ancient views on God being the originator of evil confirmed that he must have been the

cause of Job’s suffering. Further, God was within his divine rights, even if mankind could not

fully comprehend the reasoning behind these actions. Job and his wife proclaimed innocence,

with some support from Elihu. The three friends, and to some degree Job, declared God’s

culpability because they insisted that he was wholly sovereign and could do whatever he wanted.

Yet they recognized that God was resolved to punish only those who deserved it.

Culpability

The arguments for culpability in this study focused on the śāṭān, God, and Job. Chapter

Four began by discussing the fact that the śāṭān argued against God’s sovereignty by advocating

for the culpability of God and Job. However, he could not act without the Divine making specific

allowances, and he solely determined the types of disasters levied against Job. Comprehending

this character and his arguments required historical, biblical, and literary investigations into the

302

correlations between Jewish religious observances and the heavenly gatherings, along with the

identities of the bǝnê 'ĕlōhîm (sons of God).

The study supposed that ancient Jewish observances (i.e., rituals and holy days) were

already common practice, even though the story predates the life of Moses and Deuteronomic

influence. Since God was the originator of such observances, parallels were drawn between

earthly observances and heavenly gatherings of a historical and recurring nature. Rabbinic

literature and midrash were sourced in exploring the gatherings (1:6-12; 2:1-6) and the identity

of the sons of God and the śāṭān (e.g., Talmud, Malbim, Maimonides, and Rashi). Rashi drew

connections between the heavenly gatherings and the Joban story by citing observances such as

Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.

The time and place of the heavenly occurrences in Job 1–2 were significant, and

intertestamental references lent weight to these happenings (1 Kgs 22; Jer 29; Zech 3). The bǝnê

'ĕlōhîm were determined to be the righteous and fallen angels of the Bible in heavenly and

earthly settings. These beings were subject to whatever constraints God placed upon them for

appearing in his presence and participating in the gatherings of the heavenly court.

The exposition of the text on the Joban gatherings introduced the repeated legal metaphor

and discussed the posture and position of the main characters. The śāṭān challenged God, making

accusations against him and Job, presenting evidence that questioned Job’s fear of the Lord and

God’s motivations for rewarding him. The posture and position of the śāṭān was one of

vehemence for God’s authority. He presented God as self-motivated because he did not act from

an appropriate ruling position since his actions were self-aggrandizing. He presented Job’s

posture and position as being exclusively based on the blessings Job received from God. The

study determined that this accuser was an adversary of God and was incensed because of God’s

303

righteousness within Job. His accusations and arguments against God’s sovereignty were

inferred and delivered under the auspices of attacks against Job’s person and character.

In Chapter Six, the scriptural transition from the heavenly realm to an earthly setting

sparked the exposition of the Dialogue and revealed how the earthly characters viewed

culpability. Job initially supported God’s right to give and take away as he saw fit, characterizing

his belief in distributive justice (1:20-21; 2:9-10). Job’s countenance was holistically affected by

being struck down with a physical malady and other severe symptoms. He fell silent as part of

the grieving process and the early forms of the halakhot of mourning and excommunication. He

was thrust into a state of constant searching for consolation and a sense of ethical rightness amid

his suffering. After the interchange between Job and his wife, the speeches representing the

earthly characters’ arguments (3–37) focused on Job’s culpability as the reason for his suffering

(2:9-10). The visitors failed to recognize the distinct differences between culpability and

responsibility. These were defined through researching the relational connections between God,

the śāṭān, and Job, using legal terms (i.e., guilt, at will, and risk).

Exploring the concept of responsibility showed how God’s direct and indirect actions and

Job’s decisions controlled the consequences of the disasters. God accepted full responsibility for

all things, and his will and ways were woven together in the text’s multi-layered meaning

(temporal, eternal, prophetic, and eschatological). The depth of this discussion controlled the

assignment of culpability and placed it rightfully upon the śāṭān. Furthermore, the wife and the

visitors had different ideas based on their knowledge, experiences, and doctrinal beliefs.

304

The Śāṭān

The śāṭān’s participation was represented as evil with a purpose, with mixed reviews on

whether he was a human or celestial being.

The study found that he was a fallen son of God who

had ventured into the heavenly court, and God was the one who initiated the conversation about

Job. His arguments in both heavenly gatherings were against God’s sovereignty and were less

concerned with Job’s culpability, asserting that Job would curse God, but God was the one to

blame. He saw any culpability on Job’s part as an additional outcome and a means to an end.

The Wife

Jewish and Christian commentators overwhelmingly viewed Job’s wife as a negative

persona, with the study specifically exploring the negative portrayal of women in the Talmud

and Rabbinic literature (Bereishit Rab. 19:12; 57:4; b. B. Bat. 15b:7).

The T. Job, Tg. Job, and

Pseudo-Philo presented Job’s wife in a more sympathetic light.

By accepting the societal and

marital constraints of her day and setting aside negative assumptions, one could see that Job

acknowledged she was righteous, and they both acknowledged God’s sovereignty.

Job’s wife believed God was culpable because she adhered to retribution theology. She

knew an act of cursing God should bring about Job’s death and a sense of relief for them both,

and this desire was probably overwhelming. Additionally, the tenor and interpretation of her

words would have been seen differently if the arrangement had been linguistically reordered and

the punctuation changed accordingly. The study supposed that the use of her words and her

intentions were misinterpreted.

Al-Fayyūmī, The Book of Theodicy, 154; Eisen, Medieval Jewish Philosophy, 24-5.

Job’s wife is likened to Eve in Bereishit Rab. 19:12; Chrysostome, Commentaire sur Job, 175; Cheyne,

Job and Solomon, 14; Shepherd, “Strike His Bone,” 81; Clines, Job 1-20, 51; Vicchio provides an overview of early

Jewish and Christian commentators from a literary-historical perspective, only citing some verifiable sources (e.g.,

Augustine, Gregory I, and Calvin); Vicchio, Job, 17, 59-60.

Legaspi, “Job’s Wives,” 72-3.

305

The Failing Friends

As mentioned, the friends’ arguments undeniably faulted Job for his situation and

believed him to be entirely culpable. There were hints of expressed sympathy in the observance

of Jewish halakhah, which devolved into imploring Job to be silent, listen, and respond to their

protestations and advice. Their perceptions of God were grounded in him being a fair judge who

rewarded the righteous and punished the wicked. The friends’ arguments were punctuated by

portrayals of the wicked, the repentant, and the righteous in their efforts to elicit a confession

from Job, secure his repentance, and vindicate God by releasing the deity from any culpability.

They proposed that these actions would ultimately end in Job’s holistic restoration. As good

Jews and God-fearers, they reinforced the parameters of God’s authoritative rule, his

unfathomable wisdom, and his unrestrained power. From their point of view, God punished Job

for his and/or his children’s wickedness, and unless Job repented, he would ultimately die a

physical and spiritual death.

The friends failed in their endeavors because their arguments revealed the need to justify

Job’s situation out of selfishness. God needed to fit their mold to shore up their doctrinal beliefs.

Otherwise, their faith and earthly wisdom were fundamentally flawed. They also used Job’s

situation to reinforce their perceived integrity and morally separate themselves from him,

revealing their self-righteousness. They exaggerated circumstances, proffered inconsistent

accusations, and manufactured evidence.

Accusations and arguments made in arrogance and ignorance failed to represent God

properly. The friends described a God who is distant from earth’s reality, is silent out of

indifference, punishes man by rote, and has a flawed perception of the divine-human

relationship. The more they said about God’s character, his will, and his ways, the less they said

306

to support their cause. Akin to Job, they sought consolation and a sense of ethical rightness to

meet their own needs and confirmed their own beliefs instead of unselfishly meeting their

friend’s physical, mental, social, and spiritual needs. Their pursuit of these things required Job’s

silence and acquiescence.

The Observant Elihu

Elihu’s idea of God’s ruling nature somewhat aligned with retribution theology and the

portrayals offered by the friends; however, he recognized that they failed to answer Job’s

concerns humbly and only offered ill advice. Elihu’s relationship with Job was distinctive, but

the text provides no details. He was more of an observer than a friend. He approached his

arguments differently since he lacked the same emotional ties. The study does not advocate that

Elihu believed Job was at fault and brought punishment upon himself and his family due to

unrepentant sin. The text implies that Elihu is angry with the friends and over Job’s confident

arguments of innocence, which led Job to make bold statements about God’s response, or lack

thereof. The tenor of Job’s remarks led Elihu to believe that he was dangerously close to

blaspheming God and was potentially sinning with his recent words and actions.

Elihu’s portrayals of God as Creator, Governor, Judge, Retributor, and Teacher were

better representations of the Divine’s person and the roles he would employ to remedy Job’s

condition and position. The hope that Elihu offered was that God was fully capable of rescuing

Job from his “misery,” supposing Job was an “afflicted” victim of “oppression” (36:15). Elihu’s

arguments were not rebuked by God. The distinct presence of literary and theological echoes of

Elihu’s words in Job 38–41 confirmed his speeches were a literary bridge between the friends’

collective rebuke of Job and God’s remedy.

307

Figure 10.2: Summary of Implications on Culpability

308

Summary of Implications on Culpability

Implications on culpability arise from answers to the first three research questions. The

results are based on how the divine and human characters’ identities, postures, and positions are

received and applied to the meaning of the text. The perceptions and interpretation of their words

and actions, mainly where the earthly characters are concerned, rely heavily on their views on

the principal foci. This study purports that the śāṭān and the earthly characters argue against the

sovereignty of God, with mixed opinions on God and Job’s culpability versus God’s

responsibility (Figure 10.2).

Ancient Jewish and Christian literature offers a mixed review as well. Overwhelmingly,

Jewish rabbinic scholars advocate for a sinful, guilt-ridden Job whom God rightfully puts in his

place, seemingly ignoring that God declared Job blameless twice and affirmed his righteousness

a third time in Job 42. This derives mainly from their understanding of the evil inclination of

man residing internally and the need to absolve God from being the originator of evil. Just as it

was important for Job to confirm his innocence, exploring the juxtaposition of innocence against

the backdrop of retributive justice is equally important.

Innocence

The question of Job being a sinner lingered throughout the Dialogue. Consequently, his

answer was influenced by fluctuating positions of personal doubt, renewed confidence, and

expectations of God’s obligations. He felt God’s primary responsibility was to be present and

listen to his arguments for innocence. Additional implications on innocence for the first three

research questions were noted throughout the Dialogue, and RQ 4 came into the frame (Figure

10.3). Job questioned his suffering; his responses hinged on whether he was innocent and

whether God was who Job expected him to be.

309

Figure 10.3: Research Question 4

Was Job a Sinner?

The main question in determining Job’s innocence would be whether he was a sinner.

The exchange between Job and his wife answered this question in the affirmative for most

scholars, and the perception was carried forward throughout the friends’ speeches. Contra to

common thought, the wife seemingly acknowledges that Job was holding fast to his integrity,

and she might have been encouraging him to hold firm (2:9). In the reverse, Job included her in

his acknowledgment in 2:10, using the pronoun “we” when speaking about accepting whatever

God gives. This was possibly a mutual statement of faith.

The visitors’ opinions on Job’s sinfulness were almost unanimous. Eliphaz (4:7; 15:4-6;

22:5), Bildad (8:5-6; 18:4), and Zophar (11:6; 20:29) referred to Job directly and indirectly as a

sinner. One could assume that Elihu followed suit from the previous speakers because of his

confident, strong language at the beginning of his first speech. However, he did not refer to Job

as wicked to the degree mentioned before. Elihu referred to Job’s sin (34:7, 37; 35:16), and his

references gave examples from the present. Job’s vacillation between his claims of innocence

and professions of guilt could have been proof that he was indeed guilty, were it not for close

examination of his arguments. No man is ever entirely without sin, but men can live holy and

blameless lives when fully committed to God.

310

Job’s Positions

In Chapter Seven, the investigation of Job’s conditional and dispositional movements

seemed to cause him to vacillate over his innocence and guilt, fully explaining his position. His

early comments confirmed his theocratic faith and acknowledgments of the positional authority

of God (1:20-22; 2:10). Noticeable changes in his language and behavior indicated deep despair

as he cursed the day of his birth and moved toward a position of lament (3:1-26). Even though

intertestamental parallels of this same form of cursing were found in Ecclesiastes and Jeremiah,

Job seemed to be held to a different standard by Jewish sages. Midrashic commentators primarily

advocated for his guilt (Rashi, Alshikh, and Malbim) despite acknowledgments of Job’s

innocence from God, the śāṭān, and Job’s wife.

His freely-composed curse (3:1-10) set the stage for metaphorical themes and language

used to persecute and defend him, such as degrees of light and darkness, echoes of creation,

legalities of his position before man and God, and death. The relationship between chapters three

and twenty-three implied the temporality of his fluctuating positions due to the anguish imposed

upon him. He repeatedly insisted on an audience with God because he needed divine comfort and

an explanation for the undeserved punishments.

Job’s spiritual dispositions were in flux due to his emotional and grief-stricken responses.

He could not be quiet, and so he rejected the imposed silence of his tormentors. They failed to

soothe his anguish, and so he rejected human consolation. They used rudimentary legalese to try

and convict him of sins he had not committed, so he dismissed their sense of ethical rightness.

He rejected all this to embrace his innocence and implored God to break his silence.

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 2:10; Alshikh, “Chelkat Mechokek on Job,” 2:10; Sefaria, “Malbim on Job,”

2:10.

311

As Job gained momentum and confidence in his demands, he weighed his perception of

God’s obligations with his expectations. First, God’s theocratic position obligated him to be a

ruler, but Job expected him to be just. Since he was put on trial by his friends, he questioned

whether he could take God to court for the heaviness of his hand (23:1-2). He juridically

examined what he knew of the divine-human relationship and divine retribution. He questioned

these concepts due to his own experiential knowledge of the circumstances of others. Job’s

dissatisfaction did not come from a man being discomforted by disaster; he expected resolution,

and God was the only one who could provide it. Job proclaimed his innocence; his arguments

evoked and demanded the presence of God.

Second, Job believed God was obligated to be a judge, but he expected the Divine to be a

witness for him in the face of such undeserved calamities and persecution. Throughout the

Dialogue, Job contended with his accusers for taking on God’s judicial role. What right did they

have to accuse and convict him? He did not acquiesce to demands for his repentance since these

were based on flawed beliefs. Instead, he took a public oath of innocence and exacted a curse on

himself should he represent himself in any other light (27:2-6a). Job’s final arguments for his

innocence proclaimed that he had been an honorable man in his home, in his community, and

through his leadership. He had fallen from his once lofty placement and agonizingly described

his current state, declaring that his integrity was consistent in public and private.

312

Figure 10.4: Summary of Implications on Innocence

313

Summary of Implications on Innocence

A wide variety of implications on innocence are reflected in the Joban story. In

conclusion, the focus will mainly be on the divine-human relationship between God and Job

(Figure 10.4). If the story’s sufferer is innocent, he is truly heroic for going through such a

horrific ordeal. Job, his wife, God, and Elihu have, quite possibly, been misrepresented by

generations of Jewish and Christian scholars. The turmoil and confusion reflected in his

conditional and dispositional movements do not prove he is a sinner. His emotive and

contemplative struggle is born out of his humanity by (a) seeking divine consolation, (b)

realizing there is a distinct separation between the human concept of ethical rightness and God’s

transcendent application of his sovereignty, (c) discovering that the faulty application of

retribution theology has compounded his situation of suffering, and (d) understanding that God

was present and waiting for the right time to reveal himself, to increase Job’s knowledge, and to

provide a remedy for his situation.

The Final Affirmations of God’s Sovereignty

The sublimity of God’s arguments, as presented as a theophany, demonstrated an

evidentiary change in how God was seen and understood from previous chapters. Job’s wife saw

him as someone who would react quickly to Job’s cursing (blessing), causing his death (2:9) and

bringing relief. The friends’ rigid interpretations described a God who rules with absolute power,

is aided by unlimited knowledge, and foregoes consideration of outside intervention and

temporal circumstances in his judgment of man. This communicated a distant, unfeeling, and

dispassionate being. On the contrary, Job 1–2 and 38–42 presented a God that permitted outside

314

interventions and the imposition of temporal circumstances, which he remedies at the right time

because he is a just and compassionate ruler, judge, and witness.

The theophany demonstrated that God was acutely aware of Job’s ongoing situation. Job

fully accepted the theocratic nature of his relationship with Yahweh; however, he had difficulty

reconciling God’s prolonged silence with the confirmation of his innocence. Any perceived

aloofness was due to misunderstandings about God’s person and presence, his will and ways, and

the influence of ancient views of divine retribution and human suffering (RQ 5; Figure 10.5).

Figure 10.5: Research Question 5

The Effectiveness of God’s Arguments

Chapter Eight explained the effectiveness of God’s arguments for his sovereignty through

his use of theophany, along with classic philosophical and apologetic arguments that are rooted

in Jewish oral tradition and shaped by formative doctrinal beliefs.

These two aspects helped

God to define and justify his authority, wisdom, and power. Even though none of the characters

questioned the reality of a supreme deity, the book’s poetry is flooded with related language,

conceptual explanations, and links to other biblical texts (i.e., Gen 1–2). The book featured the

theophany and these tenets in the presentation of the Almighty’s case, and these serve as

Outside interventions are reflected by the following: the śāṭān, the Sabeans, the Chaldeans, natural

phenomena of wind and fire, Job’s wife, and the visitors.

Wiley and Culbertson, Introduction, 78-83.

315

contextual baselines for his sovereign role, his anticipated appearance, the explanation of his

administration of creation and the universe, and his relationship with mankind.

The text affirms God as a supreme, necessary Being (Ontological Argument). His

existence is the First Cause for every fundamental effect legislating things seen and unseen

(Cosmological Argument). God created man with a conscience and has given him a moral

standard by which to live (Moral Argument). These and other formal arguments confirm God’s

existence and are foundational to the earthly characters’ shared belief in him.

In a legalistic fashion, God delivered his arguments for his sovereignty in two speeches

during the theophany (38–42). He declared that he rules by design, which is enabled by his

authority, wisdom, and power. His first speech (38–40:5) was deemed mostly cosmological but

was coupled with the Teleological Argument. This theological argument declared the world was

designed with purpose and resulted in several belief systems, including Natural Theology.

Yahweh’s four primary arguments were as follows:

• Argument One – God is the Creator of everything that exists and exercises constant

influence over creation by holding all things in place. The presented evidence

discussed his design of the foundations of the earth and the sea (38:4-11).

• Argument Two – He is the Governor and rules by authority. The proffered evidence

described how he commands the natural elements and the seasons.

• Argument Three – God rules through wisdom, possessing an elemental wisdom over

the natural and unnatural elements at work in the above and below.

• Argument Four – He rules through power and cited evidentiary examples of

powerful animals that are real and thought to be prophetic and eschatological

representations of the Jews.

316

Besides the legal aspects of God presenting and arguing his case, an air of acceptance

culminated in the last chapter and dominated the end of the book. God anticipated and expected

Job’s silence, accepting that Job was limited in wisdom and understanding. He wanted Job to

grow spiritually by expanding his thinking beyond his circumstances and enhancing his

immediate awareness of his world. Job readily accepted God as the wise Creator and Governor

of the universe and the consolation he provided.

The Finality of it All

Chapter Nine addressed the final contributions of God and Job by detailing God’s final

actions, declarations, and his path from being unseen to understood. Job’s posture changed when

he accepted how God identified him and followed God’s instructions. Job’s posture of

acceptance was reinforced through his assumed position of silence and increased awareness of

the significance of divine consolation. God defined the standard of ethical rightness for Job by

once again declaring him righteous, portraying Job as an antitype for Jesus Christ. God rebuked

the friends for their misguided advice and chastisement of Job. The friends accepted his rebuff

and repented, and in turn, Job accepted the friends’ repentance. Salvation was extended to them

through sacrifice and Job’s intercessory prayer. Elihu was not rebuked or mentioned in Job 42;

perhaps his participation was deemed righteous and required no further action from God.

Summary of Implications on the Final Affirmations

The implications of the final affirmations of God’s sovereignty represent forty-two

chapters of a multifunctional and multilayered text that encapsulates a diverse interpretation of

God’s person, will, and ways (RQ 1–5; Figure 10.6). The Divine’s theophanic appearance and

presentation of his case are the pinnacle of a tumultuous and enthralling storyline that supersedes

the application of retribution theology and views on human suffering.

317

Figure 10.6: Summary of Implications on Final Affirmations

318

God’s person and presence were the most critical factors in the divine-human relationship

for Job, and God broke his silence at the right time to reinforce that Job was equally important to

him. Job was restored, and he has become the most renowned victim and victor in the Bible,

second only to Jesus Christ. Reflecting upon God’s arguments gave way to a sense of finality for

the words and actions of God, the śāṭān, and the earthly characters, resolving the dilemmas of

culpability and innocence. The friends, serving as terrestrial satans, are deemed culpable,

whereas their accused was considered innocent. The celestial accuser, the instigator of Job’s

unfathomable suffering, disappears without further mention.

Contributions of Comparative Midrash

This research was enabled and empowered by using and adapting the Comparative

Midrash methodology to study the transcendent sovereignty of God and Job’s situation of

suffering. The literary landscape of prose and poetry is dominated by the legal motif as a vehicle

that drives interactions between the characters in correlation to the meanings of the text.

Theologically, the meanings are diverse, and the method enabled the incorporation of a broad

spectrum of sources that generated information on associated ancient views. The initial lines of

inquiry into divine retribution and the impetus for human suffering widened the investigation to

the concepts of theocracy and theodicy. They revealed contextual issues that affected the original

research strategy. The method empowered the exploration of contextual foundations, the

characters and their arguments, and the consequential outcomes of accepting and affirming

God’s sovereignty. The findings and implications transversed time, from the original Jewish

audience to contemporary readers and scholars, and contextually expanded the understanding of

sovereignty.

319

The contributions of content from the ancient Jewish practices of darash and midrash

combined with other sources, such as those composed by past theologians, church fathers,

philosophers, apologists, and modern to contemporary scholars, compounded as the study took

full advantage of the wealth of available literature and commentary. Consequently, the study

recognized that ancient Jewish supplemental texts (i.e., Mishnah, the Talmuds, pseudepigrapha,

and Apocrypha), Christian scholarship, and ANE literature and artifacts cannot be seen as

unequivocally authoritative in comparison to the Bible. These extrabiblical sources provided

additional background and illuminated the past’s customs, beliefs, cultures, and historical

happenings, helping to mitigate the three-fold contextual problem revealed during the literature

review.

The methodology proved flexible enough to adequately search (darash) volumes of

information that improved the interpretation (midrash) of the arguments through the increased

incorporation of the Jewishness of the text and the principal foci. The increased investigation of

layers of underlying context that influenced past and present interpretations of the characters’

origins, identities, and dialogue was essential, exposing and explaining veiled contributions that

did not cohere with Jewish and Christian scriptures and doctrines. Conversely, the study

benefited from revealing additional contextual layers that stimulated deeper historical, literary,

and theological understandings.

Key contributions resulted from using and adapting a midrashic form of exposition and

engaging exegetically with the Joban text. Combining this process with an expanded research

strategy yielded the following examples, which are not inclusive of all findings and implications:

• Analyzing geohistorical backgrounds, interspersed with abbreviated genealogical

surveys, showed that the contextual foundations of the story in Job 1–2 are based on

320

reality. This story is about real people who lived in a historical region in the ANE that

reasonably aligned with the story of Job and contributed to its many messages. The

merging of the people of the East to God’s chosen people connected spiritual giants

like Noah, Abraham, and Moses to Job. What substantive value does this book offer

on the arguments if it is partially based on fictional characters from a fictional land

and a hero who did not really suffer or meet God face to face? A sovereign God has

genuine connections with real people and can preserve the integrity of messages that

reveal who he is and his relationship with mankind.

• Establishing the origins and identities of the satanic figure in Job (separating him

from the NT Satan) and parallelling this same approach to God (separating him from

El) exposed underlying contexts that discount or diminish God’s sovereign role and

the diversity of evil and suffering in the world.

• Jewish customs and laws that governed the various stages of mourning contributed to

the understanding of the significance of the rending of garments, dust and ashes, the

seven days of silence, and the visitation of mourners.

The context of ancient Jewish

oral and recorded religious observances and worship practices also provided

foundations for the settings and purposes of the heavenly gatherings and participants.

• God’s people should not ignore the suffering of others. They must console those who

are hurting and provide support, as this is an extension of their commitment to God

and their community. Human consolation is not a replacement for God’s consoling

presence, which prioritizes the spiritual administration of the human soul according to

Soloveitchik, Eulogy for Tolner, 2-3, qtd. in Schindler, “The Halakhic Framework,” 70; W. Thiel, s.v.

“qāra,” 175-8; Jerome and Uroko, “Tearing of Clothes,” 6; Maimonides, “Shefar Shoftim, Avel 13:2-3; Sefaria,

“Introduction to Moed Katan,” 1-2, 8-9, 14; m. Mo'ed Qaṭ. 28b:23; Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 1:6; Gen 50:10; 1 Sam

31:13; Sirach 22:12; Steinberg, Celebrating the Jewish Year, 233-4.

321

his superior wisdom and the timing of interventions in response to tragedies and/or

acts of evil.

• The revelation of a deep bias concerning how some rabbinic sages viewed women

went well beyond the correlation of Job’s wife and Eve encouraging their husbands to

sin. The list of derogatory characteristics applied to women was disconcerting and

could have easily been used for men, although some sages were sympathetic toward

Job’s wife.

• The beautiful and practical descriptions concerning the design of the heavens and

how God set the earth’s foundations align with the intricate nature of God’s ongoing

administration of all things in existence (naturally and supernaturally; 4:4-6b; Prov

8:23).

This reinforced the importance of God’s roles, as outlined in his arguments.

Additionally, this explained that the temporal corruption of natural things influences

how humanity operates within the limits of bestowed freedom until the Divine will

eternally rebuke, reconcile, and restore everything.

• The complex prophetic and eschatological background on the representations of

Behemoth and Leviathan, the demise of Judah and Israel, and Job being an antitype of

Jesus Christ illustrated that God’s sovereignty is not one dimensional.

The story of

Job is not a standalone, feel-good portrayal of one man who survives acts of evil and

resultant suffering. The story is inextricably linked to the overall narrative of God’s

role in the divine-human relationship and what is to come.

Bereishit Rab. 45:5; 57:4; Schwartz, “The Blessed Mother,” 121.

Sefaria, “Rashi on Job,” 38:6; Alshikh, “Chelkat Mechokek on Job,” 38:4.

Job 16:21; 26:6; 35:8; 40–41.

322

The midrashic method confirms that the Bible is a multi-layered and multifunctional text

that shifts and moves through history, birthed from God’s perspective. Authors, scribes, and

chosen terrestrial, celestial, and other divine beings represented within its pages have relayed the

Divine’s thoughts and expectations. Readers and scholars of the Word must recognize that their

perspectives, knowledge, and understandings are limited, like the earthly characters in Job.

Expository and exegetical research brings one in contact with biblical and extrabiblical sources

that express opinions and content couched in parabolic, anecdotal, and allegorical terms.

Lastly, Comparative Midrash was proven to be a unique and legitimate method for

investigating material in wisdom and prophetic texts in the wake of being responsibly aware of

the expositional and exegetical hazards.

Three real dangers in using this evolved method would

be to (a) give more weight to extant works than the Bible, (b) rely too heavily on any one source

without broad inspection and adequate investigation, and (c) flatten the interpretation and

exposition of passages in the search for definitive explanations and resolutions for biblical

quandaries. One must use this midrashic method knowing that some mysteries found within the

Bible cannot be solved, some texts cannot be deciphered, some meanings cannot be understood,

and true revelation comes from God in his time, not from man. When theologians and scholars

try to force the interpretation and application, they create contextual problems or incorporate

underlying context that places too much reliance on external or secondary sources. Having said

this, the method was effective, enjoyable to execute, and enriching from both scholarly and

personal perspectives.

Contemporary and modern scholarship only sometimes includes Jewish and early Christian writings or

explains the Jewish influences that should guide readers toward a proper understanding of the Joban subject matter.

The uniqueness of the method is that it originated from the Jewish practice of searching and interpreting Scripture

and derived from the originating or adopted culture of the Joban characters. This is the source of its legitimacy as an

approach. Modern scholarship must balance the Jewish influence through intra- and intertextual sources because all

Jewish literature should not be on par with the Bible and the Tanakh.

323

Limitations

Several limitations arose during the course of research for the study and the researcher.

Some limitations derived from the availability of sources, managing and organizing information,

and maintaining consistent alignment between the thesis, research strategy, and adaptation of the

methodology. Determining important scholarly advancements and the current status of

foundational disagreements was a real challenge, considering the sheer volume of available

scholarship. Acquiring sources specific to divine sovereignty in the book of Job was problematic,

and this necessitated reviewing a larger volume of work on the broader topic to garner

specificity. The approach was to investigate to minimize underlying context broadly, and

sufficient material was collected and needed to be pared down throughout the research.

Maintaining consistent alignment with the thesis presented difficulties as the study

progressed since it proved too broad, affecting the use of the research strategy and methodology

from time to time. Researching within the context of the disclosed ancient views was meant to

narrow the scope. Divine retribution and human suffering proved to be expansive topics, in and

of themselves, overlapping with other themes and genres (theocracy, theodicy, justice, creation,

prophecy, eschatology). A myriad of contributing scholarly disciplines shored up the overall

investigation and substantiated findings by addressing gaps to narrow down specific contextual

issues that affected the interpretation. The goal was to approach the study using a broad spectrum

of material, and it was adapted as the project evolved. A compilation of chapters detailed the

development of the characters, arguments, associated themes, and theological considerations.

Subsequent to this, two limitations pertain to the researcher of this study. Even though I

was involved in ministry as a lay leader, attended seminary, and was an ordained minister for

nearly seventeen years, my exposure to Hebrew and Greek languages and ancient Jewish texts

324

was limited. Comprehending the purposes and structure of the Mishnah, the Talmuds, and the

history of Rabbinic traditions and other extant writings was a steep learning curve. The increased

engagement and exposure resulted in an increased awareness of ancient Jewish writings and

improvement in navigating these resources. The limitations related to reading various languages

of cited materials (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, French, and German) were made easier by

using lexicons, interlinear Bibles, commentaries, dictionaries, and translation software.

Benefits and Beneficiaries

A scholarly pursuit precipitated this research; however, the final offering was intended

for more than scholarly audiences with advanced levels of Joban knowledge and academic

expertise. This study was meant to engage with a much wider audience within the scholarly

community and beyond academia. One benefit is that the content is more digestible for an

expanded range of scholars and readers, with an intermediate level of biblical expertise and

theological exposure. The content may benefit more involved lines of inquiry, elicit further

research or dialogue on the topics, and engage others to further explain and expound on the

conceptual complexities. Additional engagement may or may not support the study’s

conclusions, could affirm or criticize interpretations, and could identify new avenues for

exploration and application. These types of input would solidify and/or improve the current

work.

Engagement in biblical scholarship and the exposition of the Bible as an academic

exercise can be edifying to some and add possibilities for real-world application. The meaningful

impact on believing and non-believing communities will make this effort worthwhile. The world

is well-acquainted with the presence of evil and suffering, often experiencing unplanned and

unwelcome changes. The inability to cope with disappointment, the loss of a job, or extreme

325

illness are a few examples of trying situations that cause people to wonder about God’s person

and presence, even his will and his ways. With adjustments and adaptation, sharing the

knowledge gained by the study can be tailored to a particular setting or group that would benefit

from academic/biblical instruction, counseling, encouragement, and affirmation in a variety of

settings (e.g., formal/informal classrooms, clubs, addiction/support groups, Bible studies/Sunday

schools, retreats, conferences, social media presentations, podcasts/vlogs/blogs, and the creation

of various spiritual formation and discipleship materials).

Personal Impact

The book of Job’s primary aim is to declare the sovereignty of God, but this is not

universally discussed. All that exists, operates, lives, dies, and interacts within his created order

is governed by him, at his pleasure and with his continued enablement. In true evidentiary

fashion, the book affirms that man can live a blameless life despite evil and suffering in the

world. Job truly suffered at the hand of the śāṭān and yearned for the presence of God. Amid

devastating hardship and holistic challenges, man can seek God and find him when he needs him

the most. Those seeking out the Almighty must accept his silence, listen when he speaks, revel in

his consolation, and adapt to his standard of righteousness, whether or not it aligns with the

world’s ethical standards. The close of this study appropriately ends with some of Job’s most

powerful realizations that have tremendously encouraged me in my suffering, spurred me on to a

position of strength when I felt my weakest, challenged me daily to live a holy life, and

reinforced my perseverant faith in God.

The following references are offered using the New International Version to reflect their plain meaning

and for a more contemporary representation of how this study and text has been applied to the life of the author of

this dissertation.

326

This is my witness and prayer: “The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the

Almighty gives me life” (33:4). “The fear of the Lord – that is wisdom, and to shun evil is

understanding” (28:8). “He performs wonders that cannot be fathomed, miracles that cannot be

counted” (9:10). “My ears have heard … but now my eyes have seen” (42:5). “But he knows

the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold” (23:10). When “trouble

comes,” and I am “discouraged; it strikes” me, and I am “dismayed” (4:5). I will not be

defeated and will make my case before him, for “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in

the end he will stand on earth” (19:25). Until such time as he returns and I am with him in

heaven, my prayer is that God will say to the enemy, “Have you considered my servant”

Elizabeth? “There is no one on earth like” her; she “is blameless and upright, a” woman “who

fears God and shuns evil” (Job 1:8).

327

APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL CONTENT FOR THE JEWISHNESS OF THE TEXT

The longstanding practice of midrash is embodied in the words of Jewish sages, their

studies and commentaries, and the influence of their teachings.

In the basest sense, midrash

refers to the “processes of scriptural exegesis carried on by diverse groups of Jews from the time

of ancient Israel to nearly the present day.”

These Jewish exegetes are grouped into periods, and

they are collectively called the midrashim.

Their shared oral practices of midrash produced a

body of extrabiblical works that have been compiled to form a “composite in the present

context,” and this body of work is also called midrashim.

Darash and midrash, as previously

defined in Chapter One, substantially precede the extant Jewish corpus as a practice of inquiry.

Jewish thought and literature conclusively derive from inquiries concerning the knowledge of

God and his person.

Solomon Zeitlin investigates many instances where various biblical characters have

directly and indirectly inquired of the Lord.

The practice of inquiry evolved, and the role of

having intermediaries between man and God to lead, guide, advise, and interpret became

ingrained in Jewish culture, from the Patriarchs to Moses, Joshua, the judges, the kings, and seers

This appendix provides some additional background information to enhance the understanding of the

methodology and midrashic context throughout the study.

Neusner, “Comparison,” 269.

The two main groupings of sages in Jewish history are the Tannaim (BC 20–AD 220) and the Amoraim

(AD 220–500). The time periods vary according to sources, with the tannaitic period beginning as early as BC 20

and as late as 10 AD; “Tanna (pl. tannaim) means ‘teacher’ and comes from the Aramaic word meaning ‘repeat,’”

and “Amora (pl. amoraim) means ‘speaker;’” Anthony J. Saldarini, “Jewish Responses to Greco-Roman Culture,

332 B.C.E. to 200 C.E.,” in CCB (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 431; Wilhelm Bacher et

al., “Tannaim and Amoraim,” vol. 12, in JE, ed. Isidore Singer and Cyrus Adler (New York, NY: Funk and

Wagnalls Company, 1901), 49-54; Moses Mielziner, s.v. “Amora (plural, Amoraim, ),” in JE, vol. 1, ed. by

Isidore Singer and Cyrus Adler (New York, NY: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1901), 527-8.

Neusner, 270; The composite of extant midrashim has significant time gaps, especially in the ST period.

Even if most of the physical proof of this ongoing practice has been lost to time, consistent references to teachings

and sayings demonstrate continuous practice from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah forward (Ezra 7:10; Neh 8;

10:30).

Solomon Zeitlin, “Midrash: A Historical Study,” JQR 44 (July, 1953): 21-36.

328

to prophets and priests.

The more prominent and diverse roles of recording the “interpretations

of the inquiries of the kings and people” were performed by “the seers and the prophets.”

These

oral exchanges were considered midrash, but a shift occurred after the Babylonian exile and the

restoration of Israel as a nation in 538 BC.

Jacob Lauterbach believes that Ezra, the prophet, is indicative of this shift by his

admission and that he “and Nehemiah” fully “accepted the written Torah” (Ezra 7:10; Neh 8;

10:30).

By oath, “Ezra had firmly resolved to study the Law of the Lord and to practice it, and to

teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezra 7:10). Zeitlin notes that “after the canonization

of the five books of Moses,” the “seers and prophets disappeared.”

The Bava Batra, the third

tractate in the Sedar Nezikin, confirms that “Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the last of the

prophets” (b. B. Bat. 14b:9).

Prophecies and the notion of inquiring of the Lord as the

governing authority over religion, society, and community had ceased. However, the roots of

darash found in Ezra’s writings are relatively accepted, with some minor disputations about

earlier forms.

Zeitlin, “Midrash,” 24-36.

Ibid., 24.

Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Midrash and Mishnah: A Study in the Early History of the Halakah (New York, NY:

Block Publishing Company, 1916), 2-3.

Zeitlin, 25-6.

The Mishnah is the recorded version of the oral Torah, divided into six sections called orders (sederim),

and the Seder Nezikin is the fourth order. These orders focus on specific subjects related to the Law, and they are

broken down in smaller volumes called tractates. The Seder Nezikin, also known as the “Order of Damages,” is

comprised of ten tractates that are made up of criminal and civil laws. The third tractate, the Bava Batra deals

mostly with civil laws regarding property. The Mishnah stands alone as a literary work, but is included in the

Talmud, along with the Gemara, which is a midrash of the Mishnah, meaning it is the recorded discussions of the

rabbi (sages) on the Laws (including history and application). The Talmud contains more than just the Mishnah and

the Gemara. There are two versions of the Talmud, the Babylonian, denoted in print by a “b.” before the tractate

name, and Jerusalem, denoted by a “y.” (abbreviated for Yerushalmi). The major difference between the two

Talmudic versions is the inclusion of the Seder Zeraim in the Yerushalmi, which covers agricultural laws specific to

Israel.

Jacob Z. Lauterbach, “Midrash and Mishnah: A Study in the Early History of the Halakah I,” JQR 5

(April, 1915): 505.

329

Long before the written record, Jewish oral tradition served as the guide for worship and

holy living. Zeitlin stresses that the “Midrash form is older than the halakot” (halakhot, meaning

laws), forgoing it, and “some of the halakot … in the Mishna are as old as the Pentateuch” (y.

Pe’ah 2:1:2; b. Tem.14a:14-15).

Lauterbach agrees, stating that of “the two forms of teaching

the Halakah, the Midrash is the older … original form” and “the Mishnah is the later.”

Other

laws of faith and practice preexisted the times of the Patriarchs and Moses, for certain spiritual

practices and requirements were put in place after the Fall (i.e., the giving of sacrifices). These

have endured due to oral tradition and ritual practice. “The Jewish sages have always

emphasized the continuity and unity of the written tradition (the Old Testament) and the oral

tradition,” instructs Erich Fromm.”

The categories of interpretation in Rabbinic Judaism, from their “formative periods” to

the resultant writings, have been separated into two types⎯Halakhah and Haggadah

(Aggadah).

According to Paul Mandel, the “tannaitic texts” include “midrash” that “refers to

legal inferences based on Scriptural passages” (Halakhah) and the later dissection of passages

that resulted in producing commentaries that are “homiletical” (Haggadah).

This promoted a

fuller understanding of God and holy living while clarifying Jewish history and culture. Other

aspects of early writings are those of “targumic traditions,” since this particularly applies to the

book of Job.

Zeitlin, “Midrash,” 30; Lauterbach, Midrash and Mishnah, 2-3; Three predated examples are laws

governing the reaping of the harvest (Lev 19:9; 23:22), the giving of additional offerings (Lev 23:37), and the holy

days (Lev 23:1-4; Num 29:37); Sefaria, “Jerusalem Talmud Peah,” https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_

Talmud_Peah?tab=contents; The William Davidson Foundation, “Temurah,” William Davidson ed., Sefaria, trans.

Aiden Steinsaltz, 2019, https://www.sefaria.org/Temurah?tab=contents.

Lauterbach, Midrash and Mishnah, 2.

Erich Fromm, You Shall Be as Gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and Its Tradition

(1966, repr., New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1991), 9.

Mandel, The Origins of Midrash, 11.

Ibid., 9-10.

David M. Bossman, “Insights from Comparative Midrash,” BTB 14 (February, 1984): 34.

330

The Midrash Halakhah, mostly considered tannaitic literature, comes in two primary

forms, one of those being the Midrash Torah and the other is the Mishnah. The Midrash Torah is

both an “interpretation and exposition,” instructing on the “Halakah together with its scriptural

proof … in connexion with the passage from the Pentateuch,… thus forming a halakic

commentary to the written law contained in the Pentateuch.”

The Halakhic formula can be

found in other Jewish writings (e.g., Sifra, Sifre, Mekilta, Tosefta, and the Talmuds).

The

Mishnah does not use the “scriptural proofs” to teach the halakhot, the plural word for

halakhah.

Several texts attest to the importance of the Midrash Torah and its unique role in

Jewish scholarship because of its exclusive leanings that originate from the Torah (b. Kiddushin

6a-b; 'Erub. 83a).

This instruction was based on the Torah and later included traditional “rules,

practices, and customs.”

The Mishnaic form is thought to have originated with God, being

passed down through Moses to the Israelites and beyond as a means to preserve the Law and the

religious traditions of the Jews.

The Midrash Haggadah (Aggadah) is considered to be the record of expositions by the

Amora, who were focused on illuminating and illustrating Scripture and the tannaitic writings.

Tamar Kadari explains that the Amoraim’s focus was to “create enduring connections between

the Torah and their lives, and to make the text meaningful and relevant to their generation[s],”

using “three components:”

Lauterbach, Midrash and Mishnah, 1.

Ibid.

Lauterbach, “Midrash and Mishnah,” 516.

The William Davidson Foundation, “Kiddushin,” William Davidson ed., Sefaria,

https://www.sefaria.org/Kiddushin?tab=contents.

Ibid., 503.

Tamar Kadari, “As Sweet as Their Original Utterance: The Reception of the Bible in Aggadic

Midrashim,” JBRec 9 (2022): 204.

331

• Component One – The centrality of the “biblical verse” to the interpretation

acknowledges the timeless application of God’s Word within a real-world context in

real time.

• Component Two – The Amora used “interpretive techniques that create connections

between the biblical verses and an idea.”

• Component Three – The “theological idea or moral … engages matters of the

moment, outlining a complex world of values, beliefs, and opinions.”

Kadari explains that the interpretation may begin with the scripture reference, the idea, or “the

message,” which is then reinforced with content from the scripture verse(s).

Haggadah

includes a certain measure of parabolic application to expound on the Torah, but historical

emphases are apparent in the Haggadah and Halakhah.

The targumic tradition should be mentioned due to its engagement in studying the

principal foci. The Jewish Targums have journeyed from being seen as controversial texts to

being more accepted as sources in comparative studies. These texts were composed in various

dialects of the Aramaic language according to the time of authorship, which was more widely

spoken by Jews than the Hebrew language at certain times in their history.

The texts are

thought to have originated during the “rabbinic period, with the exception of the Aramaic version

of Job found at Qumran.”

Some view the inclusion of content from the Apocrypha and

pseudepigrapha as controversial. Targums on the Ketuvim (Writings) include Job, Psalms, 1–2

Kadari, “The Reception of the Bible,” 204.

Ibid., 216, 219.

Paul V. M. Flesher and Bruce D. Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco, TX: Baylor

University Press, 2011), x.

Flesher and Chilton share that Aramaic was the language of “ordinary Jews rather than the highly

educated.” This explains why the Targums belonged more to “liturgy” (“bet knesset, the synagogue”) as opposed to

the “academy” (“bet midrash, the study house”); Ibid., ix-x.

332

Chronicles, Ruth, Esther, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs. In their

extensive primer on the Targums, Paul Flesher and Bruce Chilton share that this corpus

“constitute[s] the largest body of sustained Scripture translation and interpretation from the

ancient world” but is the “least well known.”

As in the case of halakhic and haggadic writings,

these were also formed by oral tradition and later recorded.

Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, x.

333

APPENDIX B: LISTING OF JEWISH SAGES

The following list highlights Jewish sages that provided valuable, exegetical content to this study

and other significant data.

Each period of Jewish religious leaders was assigned a name:

• Zugot (BC 170– 20)

• Tannaim, “Reciters” (BC 20–AD 220) and the Amoraim (220–500)

• Amoraim, “Sayers” (220–500)

• Savorim, “Opiners” (500–600)

• Geomim, “Eminences” (c. 598–1038)

• Rishonim, “‘Earlier’ Authorities” (c. eleventh–fifteenth centuries)

• Acharonim, “‘Later’ Authorities” (c. sixteenth century to present)

Name

Known As

Life Span

Origin

Rabbinic Affiliation

Yoḥanan ben Zakkai

Ribaz

30 BC–AD 90

Galilee

Tannaim

Yonatan ben Uziel

b. 50 BC

Israel

Tannaim

Elazar ben Shimon

d. AD 70

Israel

Tannaim

Shimon ben Yoḥai

c. second century

Israel

Tannaim

Yosei bar Ḥanina

c. third century

Israel

Amoraim

Abba bar Kahana

c. third century

Babylonia/

Israel

Amoraim

Abba ben Joseph bar Ḥama

Rava

280–352

Persia

Amoraim

Saadya ben Joseph Gaon or

Saadiah ben Joseph Al-

Fayyūmī (Arabic)

Gaon

882–942

Egypt

Geonim

Shelomo Izḥaki

Solomon bar Isaac

Rashi

1040–1105

France

Rishonim

David Kimhi

Radak

1160–1235

France

Rishonim

Abraham ben Meïr ibn Ezra

Ibn (ibn) Ezra

c. 1089–1167

Navarre

Rishonim

Levi ben Gerson

Gersonides,

Ralbag

1288–1344

France

Acharonim

Samuel ben Nissim

Masnuth

c. thirteenth century

Syria

Acharonim

Ovadiah ben Jacob Sforno

c. 1470–1550

Italy

Acharonim

Moshe Alshikh

Torat Moshe

1508–1593

Turkey

Acharonim

Yeshayahu ben Avraham

Ha-Levi Horowitz (Isaiah)

Shelah

Hakoddish

c. 1555–1630

Switzerland

Acharonim

Nachman of Breslov

1772–1810

Ukraine

Acharonim

Meir Leibush ben Yehiel

Michel Wisser

Malbim

1809–1879

Russian

Acharonim

Isaac Hakohen Kook

HaRav Kook

1865–1935

Palestine

Acharonim

Joseph Ber Soloveitchik

The Rav

1903–1993

Belarus

Acharonim

Robert Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press, 1998), 4.

334

APPENDIX C: BIBLICAL SAMPLING OF THEOPHANIC OCCURRENCES

Theophanies have visible (V) and/or audible (A) elements, and Yahwistic appearances are

singular in representation (Y). They involve two or more persons of the Trinity (T) and include

or depict other representations (OR) of divine beings and terrestrial forms through supernatural

means.

Human Recipient(s)

Type

Occurrence (Reference)

Adam and Eve

V/A; Y

The Garden of Eden: God calls out to Adam and Eve while

walking in the garden and appears to them (Gen 3:8-19).

Abraham

V/A; Y

V/A; Y, T, along

with possible OR

The Abrahamic Covenant (Gen 12:1-7)

Three Men Appear by the Great Trees of Mamre” and visit

Abraham: God or the Pre-Incarnate Jesus along with two

other divine beings (Gen 18:1-15).

Jacob

V/A: Y

Wrestling with God (Gen 32:24-30)

Moses

V/A; Y

The Burning Bush (Exod 3:2-10)

The Israelites

V/A; Y

Pillar of Cloud (Smoke) and/or Fire (Exod 13:21; 19:18;

24:7; Numb 9:15-16)

Balaam

V/A; OR

Angel of the Lord (Numb 22:22-35)

Joshua

V/A; Y or OR

Commander of the Army of the Lord (Josh 5:13-15)

Manoah and his wife

V/A; Y

Angel of the Lord (Judg 13)

Job

V/A; Y

Whirlwind (Job 38–42)

Shadrach, Meshach,

and Abednego; King

Nebuchadnezzar; other

unnamed people

V; Y or T

Fourth Man in the Furnace: God or the Pre-Incarnate Jesus

(Dan 3:16-28)

Daniel

V/A; OR

Gabriel, an angel of the Lord visits Daniel to deliver a

message from God (Dan 9:20-23)

Zechariah, the Prophet

V/A/ and/or D;

Y and OR

Heavenly Court (Zech 3:1-2)

Assorted People

V/A; T

Jesus Christ, the Incarnate (Matt 1–Acts 1)

Satan and Jesus

V/A; OR and T

Satan’s Temptation of Jesus

Mary

V/A; OR

The Annunciation: The Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary

(Luke 1:26-28)

Joseph

D; OR

Angel appeared to Joseph in a dream (Matt 1:20)

Zechariah (Elizabeth’s

husband)

V/A; Y or OR

Angel of the Lord appears to Zechariah in the Temple (Luke

1:12-17)

Assorted People

V/A; T

Jesus Christ, the Incarnate (Matthew – Acts 1)

Assorted People

V/A; T

Baptism of Jesus: Voice of God, Jesus in the flesh, and the

Holy Spirit descended like a dove (Matt 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-

11)

Disciples

V/A; T and OR

The Ascension of Jesus: Jesus ascended to heaven and “two

men in white clothing stood beside them” and spoke to

them. These human forms are thought to be angels or Moses

and Elijah (Acts 1:9-11).

Apostles and other

followers

V/A; T

Day of Pentecost: Holy Spirit represented by a “violent

rushing wind” and “tongues of fire” (Acts 2:1-4)

Stephen

V; T

Stoning of Stephen: Stephen saw God’s glory and Jesus at

his right hand in heaven

Saul (Paul)

A; T

Saul’s Conversion: Jesus spoke to Saul on the road to

Damascus (Acts 9:3-5)

335

APPENDIX D: PERMISSIONS FOR FIGURES

The List of Figures consists of diagrams and images to explain and enhance the study. Diagrams

are original to this work, and the permissions for the images are as follows:

Figure 3.1: Clay Mask of the Demon Humbaba – © The Trustees of the British Museum;

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/32497001

336

Figure 3.2: Reclining Pan – Public Domain; St. Louis Art Museum.

https://www.slam.org/collection/objects/36954/

337

Figure 5.1: Fragment of Deuteronomy 32:8 – Used by Permission from the Israel Antiquities

Authority (Email).

338

339

Figure 5.2: Four-Sided Monument of the Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon – © The

Trustees of the British Museum; Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC

BY-NC-SA 4.0) license (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/43321200).

340

Figure 7.1: “Seat of Judgement” located in Tel Dan, Israel – Used by Permission with

watermark from The Madain Project (Email).

341

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Afloroaei, Lucia. “Religious Dualism: Some Logical and Philosophical Difficulties.” Journal for

Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science 4 (January, 2009): 83-111.

Al-Fayyūmī, Saadiah Ben Joseph. The Book of Theodicy: Translation and Commentary on the

Book of Job. Vol. 25, Yale Judaica Series. Translated by L. E. Goodman. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press, 1988.

Alden, Robert L. Job: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Vol. 11, The

New American Commentary Series. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 1994.

Alexander, Larry. “Culpability.” In Oxford Handbook of The Philosophy of Criminal Law.

Edited by John Deigh and David Dolinko, 218-238. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press, 2011.

⎯⎯⎯⎯ and Kimberly Kessler Ferzan. “Confused Culpability, Contrived Causation, and the

Collapse of Tort Theory.” Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Torts. University of

San Diego Legal Studies Paper 13-114 (March, 2013): 1-32.

Alexandria, Clement of. Catena fragment 1. Quoted in Manlio Simonetti and Marco Conti, eds.

Job. Old Testament VI. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Alshikh, Moshe. “Chelkat Mechokek on Job.” The William Davidson Foundation.

https://www.sefaria.org/Chelkat_Mechokek_on_Job?tab=contents.

Altschuler, David. “Metzudat David on Job.” Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Metzudat_David_

on_Job?tab=contents.

Andersen, Francis. Job. Vol. 14, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Series. Downers Grove,

IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008.

Andersen, Ragnar. “The Elihu Speeches: Their Place and Sense in the Book of Job.” Tyndale

Bulletin 66, no. 1 (2015): 75-94.

Anderson, Bernhard W. “The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: The Sovereignty of God in

the Bible.” Theology Today 53, no. 1 (1996): 5-14.

Ansell, Nicholas. “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find The(ir Wisdo)m: Behemoth and

Leviathan in the Book of Job.” In Playing with Leviathan: Interpretation and Reception

of Monsters from the Biblical World. Vol. 21, Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and

Christian Traditions. Edited by Koert Van Bekkum, Jaap Dekker, Henk van de Kamp,

and Eric Peels, 90-117. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2017.

342

Anselm, Saint. Proslogium and Monologium (including In Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilon and

Reply by Anselm and Cur Deus Homo). Translated by Sidney Norton Dean. 1903.

Reprint. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003.

Appelboom, Thierry. “Job of the Bible: Leprosy or Scabies?” Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine

74, no. 1 (2007): 36-39.

Aquinas, Saint Thomas. Expositio super Iob ad litteram: Commentary on the Book of Job.

Translated by Brian Mulladay. St. Isadore Ebook Library. https://isidore.co/aquinas/

SSJob.htm#011.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. The Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. 2nd ed. Translated by Fathers of the

English Dominican Province. New Advent. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/.

Ash, Christopher. Job: The Wisdom of the Cross. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway,

2014.

Assmann, Jan. Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism. George L. Mosse

Series in Modern European Cultural and Intellectual History. Madison, WI: The

University of Wisconsin Press, 2008.

Augustine of Hippo. On Free Choice of the Will. Translated by Thomas Williams. Indianapolis,

IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.

Bacher, Wilhelm, Jacob Zallel Lauterbach, Joseph Jacobs, and Louis Ginzberg. s.v. “Tannaim

and Amoraim.” In Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion,

Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day.

Vol. 12. Edited by Isidore Singer and Cyrus Adler, 49-54. New York, NY: Funk and

Wagnalls Company, 1901.

Baillie, Eva Marta. Facing the Fiend: Satan as a Literary Character. Cambridge, England: The

Lutterworth Press, 2014.

Balentine, Samuel E. Have You Considered My Servant Job?: Understanding the Biblical

Archetype of Patience. Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament. Edited by James L.

Crenshaw. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2015.

Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press, 1992.

Barker, William D. “Ugaritic Literature.” In Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural,

Social, and Historical Contexts. Edited by Jonathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, and John

H. Walton, 120-5. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018.

Barnwell, Michael. “Self-determination vs. Freedom for God and the Angels: A Problem with

Anselm’s Theory of Free Will.” Saint Anselm’s Journal 14, no. 1 (Fall, 2018): 13-32.

343

Bartholomew, Craig G., and Ryan P. O’Dowd. Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological

Introduction. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.

Barton, John. “The Dark Side of God in the Old Testament.” In Ethical and Unethical in the Old

Testament: God and Humans in Dialogue. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

Studies 528. Edited by Katharine J. Dell, 122-34. New York, NY: T & T Clark

International, 2010.

Bascom, William. “The Myth-Ritual Theory.” Journal of American Folklore 70, no. 276 (April-

June, 1957): 103-14.

Bassett, Paul M., and William M. Greathouse. “The Significance of Historical Study.” In The

Historical Development. Vol. 2, Exploring Christian Holiness. 15-22. Kansas City, MO:

Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1985.

Bekkum, Koert van. “‘Is Your Rage Against the Rivers, Your Wrath Against the Sea?’: Storm-

God Imagery in Habakkuk 3.” In Playing with Leviathan: Interpretation and Reception

of Monsters from the Biblical World. Vol. 21, Themes in Biblical Narrative Jewish and

Christian Traditions. Edited by Koert Van Bekkum, Jaap Dekker, Henk van de Kamp,

and Eric Peels, 55-76. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2017.

Bercerra, Daniel. “El and the Birth of the Gracious Gods.” Studia Antiqua 6, no. 1 (June, 2008):

51-6.

Bialik, Hayim Nahman, and Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky, eds. The Book of Legends Sefer Ha-

Aggadah: Legends from the Talmud and Midrash. Translated by William G. Braude.

New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1992.

Bianchi, Ugo. Selected Essays on Gnosticism, Dualism and Mysteriosophy. Leiden, The

Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1978.

Bickell, Gustav. De Indole ac Ratione Versionis Alexandrinae in Interpretando Libro Jobi. 1862.

Reprint. Charleston, SC: Legare Street Press, 2023.

Bimson, J. J., and J. P. Kane. New Bible Atlas. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985.

Black, J. A., G. Cunningham, E. Robson, and G. Zoolyomi, trans. “Enki and the World Order:

Translation.” The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. Oriental Institute of the

University of Oxford. 2002. https://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section1/tr113.htm.

Blank, Sheldon H. “The Curse, Blasphemy, The Spell, and the Oath.” Hebrew Union College

Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Publication (1875-1950). Hebrew Union College Annual 23,

no. 1 (1950-1951): 73-95.

Blocher, Henri. “Christian Thought and the Problem of Evil: Part II.” Churchmen 99 (1985):

101-30.

344

Bloom, Harold. The Book of Job. Modern Critical Interpretative Series. New York, NY: Chelsea

House, 1988.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. Ruin the Sacred Truths: Poetry and Belief from the Bible to the Present. 1987.

Reprint. Cambridge, MA: First Harvard University Press, 1991.

Boaheng, Isaac. An Essential Guide to Research Methodologies in Theology and Religious

Studies. (Portable Document File). Accra, Ghana: Noyam, 2024.

Boda, Mark J. The Book of Zechariah. The New International Commentary on the Old

Testament. Edited by R. K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Grand Rapids, MI:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016.

Boloje, Blessing O., and Alphonso Groenewald. “‘I Know You Can Do All Things’ (Job 42:2):

A Literary and Theological Analysis of Job’s Testimony about Yahweh’s Sovereignty.”

HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 72, no. 1 (2016): 1-7.

Boss, Jeffrey. Human Consciousness of God in the Book of Job: A Theological and

Psychological Commentary. London, England: T & T Clark International, 2010.

Bossman, David M. “Insights from Comparative Midrash.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 14, no. 1

(February, 1984): 34-5.

Box, G. H. The Apocalypse of Abraham: Edited with a Translation from the Slavonic Text and

Notes. Edited by W. O. E. Oesterley and G. H. Box. London, England: MacMillan

Company, 1919.

Brenner, Athalya. “Job the Pious? The Characterization of Job in the Narrative Framework of the

Book.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13, no. 43 (February, 1989): 37-52.

British Museum The. “Mask of the demon Humbaba.” c. 1800–1600 BC. British Museum. Iraq.

3.31 x 3.25 in. Fired clay. (Image). https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_

1883-0118-AH-2598.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Monument.” c. 670 BC. British Museum. Iraq. 21.5 x 11.30 x 11 cm. Basalt.

(Image). https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1860-1201-1.

Brody, Robert. The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998.

Brody, Samuel Hayim. “Theocracy as Monarchy and Anarchy.” In Is Judaism Democratic?

Reflections from Theory and Practice Throughout the Ages. Edited by Leonard J.

Greenspoon, 91-103. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2018.

Brotherson, Derek. Contextualization or Syncretism?: The Use of Other-Faith Worship Forms in

the Bible and in Insider Movements. Evangelical Missiological Society Monograph

Series 10. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2021.

345

Brown, Derek R. “The Devil in the Details: A Survey of Research on Satan in Biblical Studies.”

Currents in Biblical Research 9, no. 2 (2011): 200-27.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. The God of This Age: Satan in the Churches and Letters of the Apostle Paul.

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 409. Tübingen,

Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2015.

Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs

Hebrew and English Lexicon: A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with

an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1977.

Brown, Ken. “How to Charge God with Murder: The Role of the ‘Witness in Heaven’ in Job

16.” The Catholic Bible Quarterly 81, no. 1 (January, 2019): 16-32.

Brown, William P. The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science and the Ecology of

Wonder. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Brueggemann, Walter. “Theodicy in a Social Dimension.” Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament 10, no. 33 (1985): 3-25.

Buber, Martin. At the Turning: Three Addresses on Judaism. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and

Young, 1952.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. Kingship of God. 3rd ed. Translated by Richard Scheimann. New York, NY: Harper

& Row Publishers, 1965.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. I and Thou. Translated by Ronald Gregor Smith. 1937. Reprint. London, England:

Morrison and Gibb Limited, 1950.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. Quoted in Bartholomew, Craig G., and Ryan P. O’Dowd. Old Testament Wisdom

Literature: A Theological Introduction. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. Quoted in Bloom, Harold. The Book of Job. Modern Critical Interpretative Series.

New York, NY: Chelsea House, 1988.

Burke, Edmund. A Phlioſophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and

Beautiful. London, England: R. and J. Dodsley, 1757.

Burnight, John. “Is Eliphaz a False Prophet?: The Vision in Job 4.12-21.” Journal for the Study

of the Old Testament 46, no. 1 (2021): 96-116.

Burns, John Barclay. “The Identity of Death’s First-Born (Job XVIII 13).” Vetus Testamentum

37, no. 3 (July, 1987): 362-4.

Burrell, David B., and A. H. Johns. Deconstructing Theodicy: Why Job Has Nothing to Say to

the Puzzle of Suffering. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2008.

346

Center for Online Judaic Studies. “The Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of

Darkness I-II – the Thirty Five Years War.” https://cojs.org/the-scroll-of-the-war-of-the-

sons-of-light-against-the-sons-of-darkness-i-ii-the-thirty-five-years-war/.

Charles, R. H. “The Testament of Asher, The Tenth Son of Jacob and Zilpah.” In The Testaments

of the Twelve Patriarchs: Translated from the Editor’s Greek Text and Edited, with

Introduction, Notes, and Indices. 161-71. London, England: Adam and Charles Black,

1908.

Charlesworth, James H. “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS III, 13-IV, 26 and the

‘Dualism’ Contained in the Fourth Gospel.” New Testament Studies 15, no. 4 (1969):

389-418.

⎯⎯⎯⎯, ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments. Vol.

1, Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1983.

Cheydleur, John R. Called to Council: Counseling Skills Handbook. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale

House Publishers, 1999.

Cheyne, T. K. Job and Solomon: Or The Wisdom of the Old Testament. London, England: Kegan

Paul, Trench & Co., 1887.

Chrysostome, Jean. Commentaire sur Job, I (Chapitres I-XIV). Translated by Henri Sorlin. Paris,

France: Éditions du Cerf, 1988.

Chung, Tae Whoe. “The Development of the Concept of Satan in Old Testament and

Intertestamental Literature.” PhD Dissertation. Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary,

2000.

Clementine Latin Vulgate and Rheims English New Testament. Vol. 1-3. Rev. ed. Translated by

Douay-Rheims. Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2014.

Clines, David J. A. Job 1–20. Vol. 17, World Biblical Commentary. Edited by David A.

Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and John D. Watts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Job’s God: A Surfeit of Theologies?” Paper presented at SBL International Meeting,

Singapore, July 27, 2005.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “The Wisdom of Job’s Conclusion (Job 42:1-6).” In Goochem in Mokum, Wisdom in

Amsterdam, Oudtestamentische Studiën 68. Edited by George J. Brooke and Pierre Van

Heck, 32-42. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninkjlike Brill, 2016.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “The Worth of Animals in the Divine Speeches of the Book of Job.” In Where the

Wild Ox Roams: Biblical Essays in Honour of Normal C. Habel. Edited by Alan H,

Cadwallader. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013.

347

⎯⎯⎯⎯. What Does Eve Do to Help?: And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament.

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 94. Sheffield, England:

JSOT Press, 1990.

Cohen, Margaret E. “Northwest Semitic Inscriptions.” In Behind the Scenes of the Old

Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts. Edited by Jonathan S. Greer, John

W. Hilber, and John H. Walton, 126-34. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018.

Collins, Stormie B., and Heather D. Bracken-Grissom. “The Language of Light: A Review of

Bioluminescence in Deep-sea Decapod Shrimps.” Biological Reviews 99, no. 5 (October,

2024): 1-25.

Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary The. Chabad. https://www.chabad.org/library/

bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm.

Cooke, Gerald. “The Sons of (The) God(s).” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

76, no. 1 (January, 1964): 22-47.

Crenshaw, James L. Defending God: Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press, 2005.

⎯⎯⎯⎯, ed. Theodicy in the Old Testament. Issues in Religion and Theology 4. Philadelphia,

PA: Fortress Press, 1983.

Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of

Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. London,

England: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.

Curtis, Edward M. Interpreting the Wisdom Books: An Exegetical Handbook. Handbooks for Old

Testament Exegesis. Edited by David M. Howard, Jr. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal

Publications, 2017.

Curtis, John Briggs. “On Job’s Response to Yahweh.” Journal of Biblical Literature 98, no. 4

(1979): 497-511.

Davidson, Richard M. “The Children of the East.” Journal of Adventist Mission Studies 14, no. 1

(2019): 48-77.

Day, John. “God and Leviathan in Isaiah 27:1.” Bibliotheca Sacra 155, no. 620 (October-

December, 1998): 423-36.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of Canaanite Myth in the Old

Testament. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 35. Cambridge, England:

University of Cambridge, 1985.

348

⎯⎯⎯⎯. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament Supplemental Series 265. 2000. Reprint. Sheffield, England: Sheffield

Academic Press, 2002.

Day, Linda. “Wisdom and the Feminine in the Hebrew Bible.” In Engaging the Bible in a

Gendered World: An Introduction to Feminist Biblical Interpretation in Honor of

Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. Edited by Linda Day and Carolyn Pressler, 114-27.

Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Delitzsch, Franz. Delitzsch on the Book of Job. Vol. II, Clark’s Foreign Theological Library

Fourth Series. Translated by Francis Bolton. Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark, 1866.

Dell, Katharine J. “Does God Behave Unethically in the Book of Job?” In Ethical and Unethical

in the Old Testament: God and Humans in Dialogue. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old

Testament Studies 528. Edited by Katharine J. Dell, 170-86. New York, NY: T & T Clark

International, 2010.

⎯⎯⎯⎯ and Will Kynes, eds. Reading Job Intertextually. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old

Testament Studies 574. New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.

Dhorme, Édouard P. A Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by Harold Knight. 1967.

Reprint. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1984.

Dolansky, Shawna. “How the Serpent in the Garden Became Satan: Adam, Eve and the Serpent

in the Garden of Eden.” Biblical Archaeology Society. July 18, 2024.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/how-the-

serpent-in-the-garden-became-satan/.

Dorsch, T. S., ed. Classical Literary Criticism. Translated by T. S. Dorsch. 1965. Reprint

Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1969.

Driver, S. R. The Book of Job: In the Revised Version, Edited with Introductions and Brief

Annotations. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1906.

Eichman, Phillip. “The History, Biology & Medical Aspects of Leprosy.” The American Biology

Teacher 61, no. 7 (September, 1996): 490-5.

Eisen, Robert. The Book of Job in Medieval Jewish Philosophy. New York, NY: Oxford

Academic, 2007. Ebook.

Euron, Paolo. Aesthetics, Theory and Interpretation of Literary Work. Transgressions: Cultural

Studies and Education 133. Edited by Shirley R. Steinberg. Leiden, The Netherlands:

Koninklijke Brill, 2019.

Eusebius of Cæsarea. “The Church History of Eusebius, Book IV.” In Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol. 1, Second Series. Translated by Arthur Cushman

McGiffert. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, 174-210. 1890. Reprint. Grand

Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1952.

349

Evans, C. Stephen, and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith. 2nd

ed. Contours of Christian Philosophy. Edited by C. Stephen Evans. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Evans, Craig A. Holman QuickSource™ Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Holman Reference

Books. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2010.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯., ed. Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission of

Scripture. Vol. 2, Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 10. The Library

of Second Temple Studies 51. London, England: T&T Clark International, 2004.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯. To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9-10 in Early Jewish and Christian

Interpretation. Edited by David J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies. Journal of the Study of

the Old Testament Supplement Series 64. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1989.

Ewald, Georg H. A. von. Commentary on the Book of Job. Translated by J. Frederick Smith.

London, England: Williams and Norgate, 1882.

Faur, José. “Reflections on Job and Situation Morality.” Judaism 19 (Spring, 1970): 219-25.

Feinberg, John S. No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God. Foundations of Evangelical Theology

Series. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2001.

Fingarette, Herbert. “The Meaning of Law in the Book of Job.” Hastings Law Journal 29, no. 6

(July, 1978): 1581-617.

Fisch, Menachem. “Job and the Bible’s Theo-Political Divide.” Religions 10, no. 1 (January,

2019): 1-11.

Fischer, Stefan. “How God Pays Back – Retributive Concepts in the Book of Job.” Acta

Theologica 20, no. 2 (2000): 26-41.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Silence and Silencing in the Book of Job.” Usuteaduslik Ajakiri 1, no. 77 (2020): 67-

93.

Fishbane, Michael. “Jeremiah 4:23-26 and Job 3:3-13: A Recovered Use of the Creation

Pattern.” Vetus Testamentum 21, no. 2 (1971): 151-67.

Flesher, Paul V. M., and Bruce D. Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Waco, TX:

Baylor University Press, 2011.

Forsyth, Neil. The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press, 1987.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. The Satanic Epic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.

Fox, Michael V. “The Meanings of the Book of Job.” Journal of Biblical Literature 137, no. 1

(Spring, 2018): 7-18.

350

Fraade, Steven D. “Literary Composition and Oral Performance in Early Midrashim.” Oral

Tradition 14, no. 1 (1999): 35-51.

Franken, H. J. “Archaeological Evidence Relating to the Interpretation of the Text.” In Aramaic

Texts from Deir 'Alla. Edited by J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij. Leiden, The

Netherlands: Brill, 1976.

Freedman, H., and Maurice Simon, eds. Genesis Midrash Rabbah, Translated into English with

Notes, Glossary and Indices. Vol. I. Translated by H. Freedman. Hertford, England:

Stephen Austin and Sons, 1939.

Freehof, Solomon. Book of Job: A Commentary. The Jewish Commentary for Bible Readers.

New York, NY: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1958.

Freeman, James M. The New Manners and Customs of the Bible. Edited by Harold Chadwick.

Alachua, FL: Bridge-Logos, 1998.

Friedlander, Gerald, trans. Pirḳê De Rabbi Eliezer: (The Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great)

According to the Text of the Manuscript Belonging to Abraham Epstein of Vienna. New

York, NY: Bloch Publishing Company, 1916.

Frimer, Aryeh A. “Insights into Mourning.” Traditions: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought

44, no. 4 (Winter, 2011): 41-6.

Fromm, Erich. You Shall Be as Gods: A Radical Interpretation of the Old Testament and Its

Tradition. 1966. Reprint. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1991.

Fyall, Robert S. Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job.

Vol. 12, New Studies in Biblical Theology 17. Edited by D. A. Carson. Downers Grove,

IL: IVP Academic, 2002.

Gammie, John G. “Spatial and Ethical Dualism in Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic Literature.”

Journal of Biblical Literature 93, no. 3 (September, 1974): 356-85.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “The Angelology and Demonology in the Septuagint of the Book of Job.” Hebrew

Union College Annual 56 (1985): 1-19.

Gaunilon. “In Behalf of the Fool: An Answer to the Argument of Anselm in the Proslogium.” In

St. Anselm, Proslogium and Monologium (including In Behalf of the Food by Gaunilon

and Reply by Anselm and Cur Deus Homo). Translated by Sidney Norton Dean, 145-69.

1903. Reprint. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003.

Gersonides. On the Book of Job. Edited by Abraham Lassen. New York, NY: Bloch, 1946.

Gertoux, Gérard. “The Book of Job: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence.”

PhD Dissertation. Université de Lyon, 2015.

351

Gesenius, H. W. F. Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament. Translated by

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. London, England: Bagster & Sons, 1846.

http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/Gesenius/index.htm.

Giberson, Karl. “Chance, Divine Action and the Natural Order of Things.” Journal of

Interdisciplinary Studies 27, no. 1/2 (Feb 2015): 99-108.

Gibson, J. C. L. “The Theology of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle.” Orientalia 53, no. 2 (February,

1984): 202-19.

Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews: Bible Times and Characters from the Creation to

Jacob. 6th ed. Vol. 1. Translated by Henrietta Szold. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish

Publication Society, 1913.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. The Legends of the Jews: Notes to Volumes I and II From the Creation to the Exodus.

Vol. 5. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1925.

Goldingay, John. “On Reading Job 22–28.” The Expository Times 124, no. 10 (2013): 480-4.

Gordis, Robert. The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job. Chicago, IL: The University of

Chicago Press, 1965.

Gordon, Cyrus. “ in its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges.” Journal of Biblical Literature

54, no. 3 (1935): 139-44.

Gounelle, André. “Dieu selon la Process Theology.” Études Théologiques et Religieuses 55, no.

2 (1980): 185-198.

Gray, John. The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old

Testament. 2nd ed. Rev. ed. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1965.

Greenspahn, Frederick E. Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of the Phenomenon and

Its Treatment since Antiquity with Special Reference to Verbal Forms. 1984. Reprint.

Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “The Number and Distribution of Hapax Legomena in Biblical Hebrew.” Vetus

Testamentum 30, no. 1 (January, 1980): 8-19.

Greenstein, Edward L. Job: A New Translation. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2019.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “The Language of Job and its Poetic Function.” Journal of Biblical Literature 122,

no. 4 (Winter 2003): 651-66.

————“Truth or Theodicy? Speaking to the Power in the Book of Job.” The Princeton

Seminary Bulletin 27, no. 3 (2006): 238-59.

Griffin, David R. God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy. Philadelphia, PA: The

Westminster Press, 1976.

352

Grintz, Yehoshua M., and Joseph Dan. s.v. “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.” Encyclopaedia

Judaica. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum. Detroit, MI:

Thomas Gale, 2019.

Guggenheimer, Henrich W., ed. The Jerusalem Talmud: Third Order: Našim, Tractates Sotah

and Nedarim. Studia Judaica 31. Translated by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin,

Germany: Walter De Gruyter, 2005.

Gunkel, Hermann. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit: Eine relgionsgeschichtliche

Untersuchung über Gen 1 and Ap Joh 12. Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1895.

Guthrie, Shirley C. “Human Suffering, Human Liberation, and the Sovereignty of God.”

Theology Today 53, no. 1 (1996): 22-34.

Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster

Knox Press, 1985.

Hahne, Harry Alan. “Nature and Theodicy in the Book of Job.” (Portable File Document).

Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting. Golden Gate Baptist Theological

Seminary, Scottsdale, Arizona, November 14, 2007.

Ham, T. C. “The Gentle Voice of God in Job 38.” Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 3

(2013): 527-41.

Hamidović, David. “About the Blurred Concept of Retribution.” In »Retribution« in Jewish and

Christian Texts: A Concept in Debate. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen

Testament 2. Reihe 492. Edited by David Hamidović, Apolline Thromas, and Matteo

Silvestrini, 1-9. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2019.

Hankins, Davis. “What Does Job Want? Desire, Fear, Anxiety, and God in and Beyond Job 23.”

Biblical Interpretations 31, no. 3 (2022): 1-21.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Wisdom as an Immanent Event in Job 28, Not a Transcendent Ideal.” Vetus

Testamentum 63, no. 2 (2013): 210-35.

Hansen, Maurice. “The Name Lucifer.” The Old Testament Student 4, no. 2 (1884): 71-3.

Harris, R. Laird. “The Book of Job and its Doctrine of God.” Grace Theological Journal 13, no.

3 (Fall, 1972): 3-33.

Hartley, John E. The Book of Job. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.

Hartshorne, Charles. Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. Albany, NY: University of

New York Press, 1984.

353

Hasker, W. “The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism.” Progress

Studies 29, no. 2 (2000): 194-208.

Hatch, Edwin. Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1889.

Hauspie, Katrin, Johan Lust, and Erik Eynikel, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint.

Rev. ed. Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003.

Havell, H. L., trans. Longinus On the Sublime. London, England: Macmillan and Company,

1890.

Hawley, Lance R. Metaphor Competition in the Book of Job. Vol. 26, Journal of Ancient

Judaism Supplements. Edited by Armin Lange, Bernard M. Levinson, and Vered Noam.

Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018.

Hebrew-English Tanankh: The Jewish Bible. Translated by Jewish Publication Society of

America. Skokie, IL: Varda Books, 1999.

Hecke, P. Van. From Linguistics to Hermeneutics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2011.

Heiser, Michael S. “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God.” Bibliotecha Sacra 158, no. 629

(January-March, 2001): 52-74.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Divine Council.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings.

Edited by Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns, 217-22. Downers Grove, IL: IVP

Academic, 2008.

Hempel, Johannes. “Die israelitischen Anschauungen von Segen und Fluch in Lichte

Altorientalischer Parallelen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

79 (1925): 20-110.

Hendel, Ronald S. “When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men.” Bible Review

3, no. 2 (1987): 8-13.

Henry, Holly. “Job’s Wife’s Name.” College Literature 18, no. 1 (February, 1991): 25-37.

Herberg, Will, ed. The Writings of Martin Buber. Reprint. 1956. Cleveland, OH: The World

Publishing Company, 1965.

Herodotus. The History of Herodotus. Vol. I. Translated by G. C. Macaulay. December 1, 2008.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2707/2707-h/2707-h.htm#link22H_4_0001.

Hesselgrave, Ronald P. I Know that My Redeemer Lives: Suffering and Redemption in the Book

of Job. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016.

Hildebrand, Nicole Marie. “The Language of Creation and the Construction of a New Concept of

Theodicy: Job 38–42.” Master’s Thesis. McGill University, 2006.

354

Hill, Andrew E. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Vol. 28, Tyndale Old Testament

Commentaries Series. Edited by David G. Firth. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

2012.

Hill, Robert C. “Job in Search of Wisdom.” Scripture Bulletin 23 (July, 1993): 34-8.

HistoryWorld. “Timeline: Assyrian and Babylon.” Oxford University Press. 2012.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780191736049.timeline.0001.

Hodge, Bodie. Tower of Babel: The Cultural History of Our Ancestors. 2013. Reprint. Green

Forest, AK: Master Books, 2021.

Hoffman, Yair. A Blemished Perfection: The Book of Job in Context. Journal for the Study of the

Old Testament Supplement Series 213. Edited by David J. A. Clines and Philip R.

Davies. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Hopfe, Lewis M., and Mark R. Woodward. Religions of the World, 9th ed. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005.

Horovitz, Isaiah HaLevi. “Torah Shebikhtav: Torah Ohr.” In Shney Luchot HaBrit (Shelah),

Translated by Eliyahu Munk (Amsterdam, 1698). https://www.sefaria.org/Shenei_

Luchot_HaBerit?tab=contents.

Hostetter, Edwin C. “The Antitheodicy of a Man in the Land of Uz.” The Expository Times 116,

no. 10 (2005): 336-7.

Hyun, Seong Whan Timothy. Job the Unfinalizable: A Bakhtinian Reading of Job 1–11. Vol.

124, Biblical Interpretation Series. Edited by Paul Anderson and Yvonne Sherwood.

Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2013.

Ibn Ezra, Abraham ben Meïr. Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch: Genesis (Bereishit).

Translated and Annotated by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. New York,

NY: Menorah Publishing Company, 1988.

Jacobs, Irving. “Elements of Near-Eastern Mythology in Rabbinic Aggadah.” Journal of Jewish

Studies 28, no. 1 (April, 1975): 1-11.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. The Midrashic Process: Tradition and Interpretation in Rabbinic Judaism.

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

James, M. R. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo: Translations of Early Documents, Series I,

Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-Rabbinic). New York, NY: The MacMillan Company,

1917.

Jančovič, Jozef. “Does God Micromanage the World? Learning about the Cosmos from the Book

of Job.” Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly 33, no. 2 (2023): 158-

171.

355

Jastrow, Morris. The Book of Job: Its Origins, Growth and Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: J. B.

Lippincott Company, 1920.

Jerome of Stridon. Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets. Vol. 2, Ancient Christian Texts.

Edited by Thomas P Scheck. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2017.

Jerome, Obiorah M., and Favour C. Uroko. “Tearing of Clothes: A Study of an Ancient Practice

in the Old Testament.” Verbum et Ecclesia 39, no. 1 (2018): 1-8.

Jindo, Job Y. “The Divine Courtroom Motif in the Hebrew Bible: A Holistic Approach.” In The

Divine Courtroom in Comparative Perspective. Biblical Interpretation Series 132. Edited

by Ari Mermelstein and Shalom E. Holtz, 75-93. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke

Brill, 2015.

Jones, Hywel R. Job. Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2007.

Josephus, Flavius. The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian. Translated by

A. M. William Whiston. 2 Vols. London, England: Bohn, 1862.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-12.html.

Jowett, R., trans. The Republic of Plato: Translated into English with Introduction, Analysis,

Marginal Analysis and Index. 3rd ed. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1888.

Kadari, Tamar. “As Sweet as Their Original Utterance: The Reception of the Bible in Aggadic

Midrashim.” Journal of the Bible and its Reception 9, no. 2 (2022): 203-26.

Kalimi, Isaac, and Peter J. Hass, eds. Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity. Library

of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 439. New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2006.

Kalman, Jason. “With Friends Like These: Turning Points in the Jewish Exegesis of the Biblical

Book of Job.” PhD Dissertation. McGill University. Montreal, Canada, 2005.

Kaminsky, Joel S. “Would You Impugn My Justice? A Nuanced Approach to the Hebrew

Bible’s Theology of Divine Recompense.” Interpretation 69, no. 3 (2015): 299-310.

Karkkainen, Veli-Matti. “‘Evil, Love and the Left Hand of God’: The Contribution of Luther’s

Theology of the Cross to an Evangelical Theology of Evil.” Evangelical Quarterly 74,

no. 3 (2002): 215-34.

Kaufmann, Yehezkel. The Religion of Israel: From its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile.

Translated by Moshe Greenberg. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Kellenberger, Edgar. “Gottes Doppelrolle in Ijob 16.” Biblica 90, no. 2 (2009): 224-36.

Kelly, Henry Ansgar. Satan: A Biography. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,

2006.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. Satan in the Bible, God’s Minister of Justice. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2017.

356

Kiel, Micah D. “Tobit.” Oxford Bibliographies. January 15, 2015. DOI: 10.1093/0b0/

9780195393361-0184.

King, L. W. Enuma Elish: The Seven Tablets of the History of Creation. 1902. Reprint.

Minneapolis, MN: Filiquarian Publishing LLC, 2007.

Kirkpatrick, Patricia G. “Curse God and Die – Job’s Wife and the Struggle for Job’s

Transformation.” In Evil and Death: Conceptions of the Human in Biblical, Early Jewish,

Greco-Roman and Egyptian Literature. Vol. 18, Deuterocanonical and Cognate

Literature Studies. Edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego, and Tobias Nicklas, 43-

55. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 2015.

Koch, Klaus. “Is There A Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” In Theodicy in the Old

Testament. Issues in Religion and Theology 4. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Edited by

James L. Crenshaw, 57-87. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1983.

Köeler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.

Rev. ed. Vol. 1. Translated by M. E. J. Richardson. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1994.

Kolesnikova, E. E. “Anatomical and Physiological Peculiarities of the Heart in Jawless and

Jawed Fish.” Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology 57, no. 2 (2021):

185-207.

Kooten, George H. van, and Jacques van Ruiten, eds. The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam

in Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam. Themes in Biblical Narratives Jewish and

Christian Traditions 11. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2008.

Kovacs, Maureen Gallery, trans. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press, 1989.

Kuelen, E. J. “God-talk in the Book of Job: A Biblical, Theological, and Systematic Theological

Study into the Book of Job and its Relevance for the Issue of Theodicy.” Master’s Thesis.

University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, 2007.

Kynes, Will, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Wisdom and the Bible. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press, 2021.

Laato, Antii, and Johannes C. de Moor, eds. Theodicy in the World of the Bible: The Goodness of

God and the Problem of Evil. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2003.

Lacocque, Andre. “Job and Religion at its Best.” Biblical Interpretation 4, no. 2 (1996): 131-52.

Lalleman, Hetty. Jeremiah and Lamentations: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 21,

Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Edited by David G. Firth and Tremper Longman

III. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Latin-English Study Bible. Translated by Ron L. Conte, Jr. https://sacredbible.org/studybible/

index.htm.

357

Lauterbach, Jacob Z. Midrash and Mishnah: A Study in the Early History of the Halakah. New

York, NY: Block Publishing Company, 1916.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Midrash and Mishnah: A Study in the Early History of the Halakah I.” The Jewish

Quarterly Review 5, no. 4 (April, 1915): 503-27.

Lawson, Steven J. Job. Vol. 10, Holman Old Testament Commentary. Edited by Max Anders.

Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2005.

Legal Information Institute. s.v. “sui generis.” Cornell Law School. June 11, 2023,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sui_generis.

Legaspi, Michael C. “Job’s Wives in the ‘Testament of Job”: A Note on the Synthesis of Two

Traditions.” Journal of Biblical Literature 127, no. 1 (Spring, 2008): 71-8.

Leibnitz, Gottfried Wilhelm von. “Discours sur la confirmité de la Foi avec la Raison.” In Essais

de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l’homme, et l’origine du mal. Nouvelle

éd. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Chéz François Changuion, 1734.

Leichty, Erle. The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC). Vol. 4, The

Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period. Edited by Grant Frame. Winona Lake,

IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library The. “Plate 172, Frag 10.” Israel Antiquities

Authority B-359054. https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-

359054.

Lévêque, Jean. Job et son Dieu: Essai d’Exégèse et de Théologie Biblique. Études Bibliques.

Paris, France: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1970.

Levin, Yigal. “The Religion of Idumea and its Relationship to Early Judaism.” Religions 11, no.

10 (2020): 1-27.

Levinger, Joseph S. “Maimonides’ Exegesis of the Book of Job.” Creative Biblical Exegesis:

Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics Throughout the Centuries. Journal for the Study of

the Old Testament Supplement Series 59. Edited by Benjamin Uffenheimer and Henning

Grad Reventlow, 81-8. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1988.

Liber, Maurice. Rashi. Translated by Adele Szold. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication

Society of America, 1906.

Lim, Timothy H. “Origins and Emergence of Midrash in Relation to the Hebrew Bible.” In

Encyclopedia of Midrash. Vol. II, Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism. Edited by

Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Aery-Peck, 595-612. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 1987.

Lipiński, Edward. Itineraria Phoenicia. Vol. 28, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 127. Studia

Phoenicia 18. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters Publishers & Department of Oriental Studies

Bondgenotenlaan, 2004.

358

Lloyd, Paul M. “On the Definition of ‘Vulgar Latin’: The Eternal Return.” Neuphilologische

Mitteilungen 80, no. 2 (1979): 110-122.

Lo, Alison. Job 28 as Rhetoric: An Analysis of Job 28 in the Context of Job 22–31. Vol. 97,

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Edited by The Board of the Quarterly. Leiden, The

Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2003.

Lockwood, Peter. “God’s Speech from the Whirlwind: The Transformation of Job through the

Renewal of His Mind (Job 38–42).” Lutheran Theological Journal 45, no. 3 (2011): 167-

82.

Lockyer, Herbert. All Men of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1958.

Löfstedt, Torsten. “Paul, Sin and Satan: The Root of Evil According to Romans.” Svensk

Exegetisk Årsbok 75 (2010): 109-134.

Longman, Tremper III, ed. Job. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. Old Testament Commentary Survey. 5th ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,

2013.

⎯⎯⎯⎯ and Peter Enns, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings.

Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008.

Loon, Hanneke van. Metaphors in the Discussion on Suffering in Job 3-31: Visions of Hope and

Consolation. Vol 165, Biblical Interpretation Series. Edited by Paul Anderson and

Jennifer L. Koosed. Boston, MA: Brill, 2018.

Lovejoy, Arthur O. “The Origins of Ethical Inwardness in Jewish Thought.” The American

Journal of Theology 11, no. 2 (1907): 228-249.

Low, Katherine. “Implications Surrounding Girding the Loins in Light of Gender, Body, and

Power.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 36, no. 1 (2011): 3-30.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. The Bible, Gender, and Reception History: The Case of Job’s Wife. Vol. 1, Scriptural

Traces: Critical Perspectives on the Reception and Influence of the Bible. Edited by

Claudia V. Camp, W. J. Lyons, and Andrew Mein. London, England, Bloomsbury

Publishing Place, 2013.

Lüdemann, Gerd. The Acts of the Apostles: What Really Happened in the Earliest Days of the

Church. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2005.

Maas, David Michael. “A Literary Diagnosis of Leprosy: The Special Case of Leviticus Rabbah,

Tanḥuma & Numbers Rabbah.” PhD Dissertation. Hebrew Union College-Jewish

Institute of Religion, 2007.

359

Mabie, F. J. “Chaos and Death.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry &

Writings, ed. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns, 107-25. Downers Grove, IL: IVP

Academic, 2008.

Mackie, J. L. “Evil and Omnipotence.” Mind 64, no. 254 (April, 1955): 200-12.

Maimonides, Moses. The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides, Translated from the

Original Arabic Text. 4th ed. Rev. ed. Translated by M. Friedländer. New York, NY: E.

P. Dutton & Company, 1904.

Maimonides, Moshe ben. “Shefar Shoftim.” Mishneh Torah: Rambam. Translated by Eliyahu

Touger. Chabad. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1181894/jewish/Avel-

Chapter-13.htm#lt=both.

Malikoff-Missen, Lynn. “Armenia: The Struggle for Survival.” PhD Dissertation. University of

Surrey, Guildford, England, 1997.

Mandel, Paul D. The Origins of Midrash: From Teaching to Text. Vol. 180, Supplements to the

Journal for the Study of Judaism. Edited by Benjamin G. Wright III. Leiden, The

Netherlands: Brill, 2017.

Mangan, Céline. “The Targum of Job.” In The Aramaic Bible: The Targums. Vol. 15. Edited by

Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara, 1-98. Collegeville, MN:

Liturgical Press, 1991.

Mare, Leonard. “The God of Job.” Verbum et Ecclesia 33, no. 1 (2012): 2.

Maxwell, Paul, and John Perrine. “The Problem of God in the Presence of Grief: Exchanging

‘Stages’ of Healing for ‘Trajectories’ of Recovery.” Journal of Spiritual Formation &

Soul Care 9 (2016): 176-193.

McDonald, Nathan. “Retribution in the Book of Numbers.” In Retribution in Jewish and

Christian Texts: A Concept in Debate. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen

Testament 2. Reihe 492. Edited by David Hamidović, Apolline Thromas, and Matteo

Silvestrini, 13-27. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2019.

McGrath, Alister E. Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough.

2nd ed. West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough. 1985.

Reprint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1994.

McNaspy, Clement J. “Sheol in the Old Testament.” The Catholic Bible Quarterly 6, no. 3 (July,

1944): 326-33.

Meiklejohn, J. M. D., trans. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Bohn’s Philosophical Library.

London, England: Henry G. Bohn, 1855.

360

Mendenhall, George E. “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law.” The Biblical Archaeologist 17, no.

2 (May, 1954): 25-46.

Merx, Adalbert. Das Gedicht Von Hiob. Jena, Germany: Verlag Hermann Dufft, 1871.

Mielziner, Moses. s.v. “Amora (plural, Amoraim, ).” In Jewish Encyclopedia: A

Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish

People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Vol. 1. Edited by Isidore Singer and

Cyrus Adler. New York, NY: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1901.

Miller, Patrick D., Jr. “El the Warrior.” Harvard Theological Review 60, no. 4 (October, 1967):

411-431.

Mitchell, Stephen. The Book of Job. New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 1994.

Moffatt, James. The Old Testament: A New Translation. Vol. II, Job–Malachi. London, England:

Hodder and Stoughton, 1924.

Monad, Wilfred. Le probléme du bien: essai de théodicée et journal d’un pasteur. Vol. 1-3.

Paris, France: Chéz F. Alcan, 1935.

Montgomery, James A. “The Religion of Flavius Josephus.” Jewish Quarterly Review 11, no. 3

(January, 1921): 295-6.

Moor, Johannes C. de. The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism. 2nd ed. Rev.

ed. Leuven, Belgium: Leuven University Press, 1997.

Moore, George Foot. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the

Tannaim. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927.

Moore, Rick D. “The Integrity of Job.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45, no. 1 (January,

1983): 17-31.

Morris, Paul. “Exiled From Eden: Jewish Interpretations of Genesis.” In A Walk in the Garden:

Biblical, Iconographical and Literary Images of Eden. Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament Supplements 136. Edited by Paul Morris and Deborah Sawyer, 117-34.

Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1992.

Morrow, William. “Consolation, Rejection, and Repentance in Job 42:6.” Journal of Biblical

Literature 105, no. 2 (June, 1986): 211-25.

Moses, Robert. “‘The satan’ in Light of the Creation Theology of Job.” Horizons in Biblical

Theology 34, no. 1 (2012): 19-34.

Mounce, William D., and Robert H. Mounce. The Zondervan Greek and English Interlinear New

Testament, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.

361

Mulder, John. “Annotated Checklist of the Herpetofauna (Amphibia, Reptilia) of Mount Ararat

and Surroundings.” Amphibians and Reptile Conservation 13, no. 1 (2019): 162-75.

Mullen, E. Theodore. The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature. Missoula,

MT: Scholars, 1980.

Munk, Eliyahu, trans. Hachut Hamueshulash. Vol. 4, Mikraot Gedolot Multi-Commentary on

the Torah. Annotated by Eliyahu Munk. Brooklyn, NY: Lambda Publishers, 2003.

Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Sforno_on_Deuteronomy?tab=contents.

Murdock, William R. “History and Revelation in Jewish Apocalypticism.” Interpretation 21, no.

2 (1967): 167-87.

Nachman of Breslov. “Sefar Ha-Middot, A Curse, Part I.” In The Aleph-bet Book. Translated by

Moshe Mykoff. New York, NY: Breslov Research Institute, 1986.

https://www.sefaria.org/Sefer_HaMiddot?tab=contents.

Narbonne, Andrew. “Thomas Carlyle’s Inverse Sublime and Early Canadian Humor.”

Nineteenth Century Studies 25, no. 1 (2011): 92-118.

Ndlovu, Siphiwe, and Angelo Nicolaides. “Angels and Angelology: The Ministering Spirits and

Elect ‘sons of God’.” Pharos Journal of Theology 102, no. 1 (2021): 1-25.

Neusner, Jacob. “Theodicy in Judaism.” In Theodicy in the World of the Bible: The Goodness of

God and the Problem of Evil. Edited by Antii Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 685-727.

Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2003.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Toward a Theory of Comparison.” Religion 16, no. 3 (1986): 269-303.

New English Translation of the Septuagint. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2009.

https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/.

Newsom, Carol A. “Job.” In The Women’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Carol A. Newsom and

Sharon H. Ringe, 138-44. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. The Book of Job: A Contest of Moral Imaginations. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press, 2003.

Nickelsburg, George W. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. 2nd ed.

Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2005.

Noort, Ed. “Balaam the Villain: The History of Reception of the Balaam Narrative in the

Pentateuch and the Former Prophets.” In The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in

Judaism, Early Christianity and Islam. Themes in Biblical Narratives Jewish and

Christian Traditions 11. Edited by George H. van Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten, 3-24.

Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill, 2008.

362

Nowell, A., C. Walker, C. E. Cordova, C. J. H. Ames, J. T. Pokines, D. Stueber, R. DeWitt, and

A. S. A. al-Souliman. “Middle Pleistocene Subsistence in Azraq Oasis, Jordan: Protein

Residue and Other Proxies.” Journal of Archaeological Science 73 (2016): 36-44.

Noya, Ludwig Beethoven J., Stimson Hutagalung, and Milton Pardosi. “Theological Analysis of

the Interpretation of Sons of God Based on Genesis 6:5.” Journal of International

Scholars Conference – Philosophy/Theology 1, no. 1 (January, 2016): 53-63.

O’Connor, Kathleen M. Job. Vol. 19, Old Testament New Collegeville Bible Commentary.

Edited by Daniel Durken. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012.

Oden, Robert. “Myth and Mythology (OT).” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4. Edited by D. N.

Freedman, 946-56. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992.

Oeming, Manfred, and Konrad Schmid. Job’s Journey: Stations of Suffering. Critical Studies in

the Hebrew Bible. Vol. 7. Edited by Anselm C. Hagedorn, Nathan McDonald, and Stuart

Weeks. Winona Lake, IN: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015.

Orlinsky, Harry M. “Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job.” Hebrew Union College

Annual 28 (1957): 53-74.

Oshima, Takayoshi. Babylonian Poems of Righteous Sufferers: Lulul Bēl Nēmeqi and the

Babylonian Theodicy. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 14. Tübingen, Germany:

Mohr Siebeck, 2014.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “The Babylonian Theodicy: An Ancient Babylonian Discourse on Human Piety and

Divine Justice.” Religion Compass 9, no. 12 (December, 2015): 483-511.

Oswalt, John N. Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?: The Bible Among the Myths.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.

Paden, William F. “Comparative Religions.” In The Routledge Companion to the Study of

Religion. 2nd ed. Edited by John R. Hinnells, 225-242. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis

Group, 2010.

Page, Sydney H. T. “Satan: God’s Servant.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50,

no. 3 (September, 2007): 449-65.

Park, Sung Jin. “The Text and Translations of Job: A Comparative Study on 11QtgJob with

Other Versions in Light of Translation Techniques.” Journal of the Evangelical Study of

the Old Testament 2, no. 2 (2013): 165-90.

Parsons, Gregory W. “The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job.” Bibliotheca Sacra 138,

no. 550 (April-June 1981): 139-57.

Parsons, John J. “Hebrew Names of God: El and El Constructs Given in Tanakh.” (Portable

Document File). Hebrew for Christians (2021): 1-3.

363

Paton, Lewis Bayles. “The Origin of Yahweh-Worship in Israel.” The Biblical World 28, no. 1

(July, 1906): 6-22.

Peake, A. S., ed. Job: Introduction: Revised Version with Notes and Index, The New Century

Bible. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1905.

Pearson, Fred B. “Sheol and Hades in Old and New Testament.” Review & Expositor 35, no. 3

(July, 1938): 304-14.

Peckham, John C. The Doctrine of God: Introducing the Big Questions. London, England: T&T

Clark, 2020.

Peterson, Michael L., ed. The Problem of Evil: Selected Readings. 2nd ed. Notre Dame, IN:

University of Notre Dame Press, 2017.

Petrie, W. M. Flinders. Six Temples at Thebes: 1896. London, England: Bernard Quaritch, 1897.

Petterson, Anthony R. Haggai, Zechariah & Malachi. Vol. 25, Apollos Old Testament

Commentary. Edited by David W. Baker and Gordon J. Wenham. Downers Grove, IL:

InterVarsity Press, 2015.

Philo of Alexandria. The Works of Philo Judæus: The Contemporary of Josephus, Translated

from the Greek. Translated by C. D. Yonge. London, England: Henry G. Bohn, 1855.

Pinker, Aron. “On the Odd  in Job 37:13.” Vetus Testamentum 69, no. 2 (2019): 258-76.

Pleins, J. David. “‘Why Do You Hide Your Face?’: Divine Silence and Speech in the Book of

Job.” Interpretation 48, no. 3 (1994): 229-38.

Pope, Marvin. El in the Ugaritic Texts. Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1955.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. 3rd ed. Vol. 15, The Anchor Bible. New

York, NY: Doubleday, 1973.

Poythress, Vern S. Theophany: A Biblical Theology of God’s Appearing. Wheaton, IL:

Crossway, 2018.

Project, Editors of the Madain. “Seat of Judgement (Tel Dan).” (Image). Madain Project.

https://madainproject.com/seat_of_judgement_%28tel_dan%29.

Proops, Ian. “Kant on the Ontological Argument.” Noûs 49, no. 1 (2015): 1-27.

Rateau, Paul. Leibniz on the Problem of Evil. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Reed, Annette Y. “Job as Jobab: The Interpretation of Job in LXX Job 42:17b-e.” The Society of

Biblical Literature 120, no. 1 (Spring, 2001): 31-55.

364

Rosen, Steven A., and Benjamin A. Saidel. “The Camel and the Tent: An Exploration of

Technological Change among Early Pastoralists.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 69,

no. 1 (April, 2010): 63-77.

Rosenberg, A. J. Job: A New English Translation of Text, Rashi, and Other Commentaries. 1989.

Reprint. New York, NY: Judaica Press, 1995.

⎯⎯⎯⎯., trans. “The Complete Tanakh (Tanach) - Hebrew Bible: The Jewish Bible with

Modern English Translation and Rashi’s Commentary.” https://www.chabad.org/

library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm.

Routledge, Bruce. “Transjordan in the Eighth Century BCE.” In Archaeology and History of

Eighth-Century Judah. Ancient Near East Monographs 23. Edited by Zev I. Farber and

Jacob L. Wright, 139-60. Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2018.

Roxberg, Åsa, David Brunt, Mikael Rask, and António Barbosa da Silva. “Where Can I Find

Consolation? A Theoretical Analysis of the Meaning of Consolation as Experienced by

Job in the Book of Job in the Hebrew Bible.” Journal of Religion and Health 52, no. 1

(2013): 114-27.

Rowley, H. H. ed., Job. The New Century Bible Commentary. 1970. Reprint. Grand Rapids, MI:

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980.

Saldarini, Anthony J. “Jewish Responses to Greco-Roman Culture, 332 B.C.E. to 200 C.E.” In

The Cambridge Companion to the Bible. 288-440. Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press, 1997.

Sandars, N. K., trans. The Epic of Gilgamesh: An English Version with an Introduction. Rev. ed.

1960. Reprint. London, England: Penguin Group, 1972.

Sangallo, Francesco da. “Reclining Pan.” c. 1560-70. St. Louis Art Museum. Italy. 25 x 52 ¾ x

23 ¼ in. Marble. https://www.slam.org/collection/objects/36954/.

Sasson, Victor. “The Literary and Theological Function of Job’s Wife in the Book of Job.”

Biblica 79 (1998): 86-90.

Sawyer, John F. A. “The Authorship and Structure of the Book of Job.” In Studia Biblica 1978:

Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes. Journal for the Study of the Old

Testament Supplement Series 11. Edited by Elizabeth A. Livingstone, 253-57. Sheffield,

England: JSOT Press, 1979.

Scheinerman, Amy. The Talmud of Relationships. Volume 1: God, Self, and Family.

Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2018.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. The Talmud of Relationships. Volume 2: The Jewish Community and Beyond.

Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 2018.

365

Schick, Shana Strauch. “Depictions of Childbirth in Rabbinic Literature.” In Mothers in the

Jewish Cultural Imagination. Vol. 5, Jewish Cultural Studies. Edited by Marjorie

Lehman, Jane L. Kanarek, and Simon J. Bronner, 285-306. Liverpool, England: Littman

Library of Jewish Civilization, 2017.

Schifferdecker, Kathryn. Out of the Whirlwind: Creation Theology in the Book of Job. Harvard

Theological Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.

Schindler, Ruben. “The Halakhic Framework of Mourning and Bereavement: Its Implications in

Dealing with Crisis.” Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 15, no. 3 (Fall, 1975): 69-80.

Schleicher, Marianne. “The Fate of Job in Jewish Tradition: On Job’s Counterpointist Function.”

Nordisk Judaistik 26, no. 1-2 (September, 2008): 5-8.

Schwáb, Zoltán. “Does the Reader Fear God for Nothing: A Theological Reflection on the

Divine Speeches in Job.” The Journal of Theological Studies 73, no. 2 (October, 2022):

439-73.

Schwartz, Matthew B. “The Meaning of Suffering: A Talmudic Response to Theodicy.” Judaism

32, no. 4 (Fall, 1983): 444-51.

Schwartz, Rami. “The Blessed Mother Sarah: The Figure of Sarah in Genesis Rabbah in Light of

Christian Exegesis and the Rise of the Virgin Mary.” MA Thesis. The Hebrew University

of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 2017.

Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger. “Order: Wisdom, Retribution, and Skepticism.” In The

Oxford Handbook of Wisdom and the Bible. Edited by Will Kynes, 83-100. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press, 2021.

Scroggie, W. Graham. A Guide to the Psalms: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Psalms. Vol. I-

IV. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal Publications, 1995.

Sefaria. “Bereishit Rabbah.” https://www.sefaria.org/_Rabbah?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Eikhah Rabbah.” https://www.sefaria.org/Eikhah_Rabbah?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Introductions to the Babylonian Talmud, Moed Katan, Introduction to Moed Katan.”

William Davidson ed. Translated by Adin Steinsaltz. 2014. https://www.sefaria.org/

Introductions_to_the_Babylonian_Talmud?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Jerusalem Talmud Peah.” https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah?

tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Jerusalem Talmud Sotah.” https://www.sefaria.org/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sotah?tab

=contents

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Kohelet Rabbah.” https://www.sefaria.org/Kohelet_Rabbah?tab=contents.

366

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Malbim on Exodus.” https://www.sefaria.org/Malbim_on_Exodus?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Malbim on Job.” https://www.sefaria.org/Malbim_on_Job?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Malbim on Psalms.” https://www.sefaria.org/Malbim_on_Psalms?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Mishnah Berekhot.” https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Berakhot?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Mishneh Torah, Mourning.” https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah_Mourning?

tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Moed Katan.” https://www.sefaria.org/Moed_Katan?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Pesikta Rabbati, Supplement A.” https://www.sefaria.org/Pesikta_Rabbati%2C_

Supplement_A.1?lang=bi

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Radak on Psalms.” https://www.sefaria.org/Radak_on_Psalms?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Ralbag on Job.” https://www.sefaria.org/Ralbag_on_Job?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Ramban on Devarim.” https://www.sefaria.org/Ramban_on_Deuteronomy?

tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Rashi on Job.” https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Job?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Rashi on Psalms.” https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Psalms?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Rashi on Zechariah.” https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Zechariah?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Sifrei Devarim.” https://www.sefaria.org/Sifrei_Devarim?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Vayikra Rabbah.” Sefaria Midrash Rabbah. Edited by Jason Rappoport, Michael

Siev, and Yaacov Francus. Translated by Joshua Schreier. 2022.

https://www.sefaria.org/Vayikra_Rabbah?tab=contents

Sela, Shlomo, and Gad Freudenthal. “Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Scholarly Writings: A Chronological

Listing.” Aleph (2006): 13-55.

Selvaggio, Anthony T. Considering Job: Reconciling Sovereignty and Suffering. Grand Rapids,

MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2021.

Septuagint with Apocrypha The: English. (Portable Document File). Translated by L. C. L.

Brenton. London, England: Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd., 2010.

Seri, Andrea. “The Fifty Names of Marduk in ‘Enūma eliš.’” Journal of the American Oriental

Society 126, no. 4 (October-December, 2006): 507-19.

367

Shatz, David. “Constructing a Jewish Theodicy.” In The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of

Evil. Edited by Justin P. McBrayer and Daniel Howard-Snyder, 309-25. West Sussex,

United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2013.

Shepherd, David. “‘Strike His Bone and His Flesh’: Reading Job from the Beginning.” Journal

for the Study of the Old Testament 33, no. 1 (2008): 81-97.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “The Case of the Targum of Job in the Rabbinic Bible and the Solger Codex.” Biblica

79 (1998): 360-80.

Simonetti, Manlio, and Marco Conti, eds. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Job, Old

Testament VI. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

Skinner, Jerome. “Judgment for the Saints: The Justice of God in Psalms 3–14.” Papers 10

(2017): 105-126.

Smick, Elmer B. Job. Rev. ed. The Revised Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper

Longman III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010.

Smith, Mark S. God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World.

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 57. Edited by Bernd Janowski, Mark S. Smith, and

Hermann Spieckermann. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd ed.

Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2002.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the

Ugaritic Texts. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Snaith, Norman H. The Book of Job. London, England: The Epworth Press, 1945.

Soloveitchik, Joseph B. Eulogy for Tolner Rebbe. Edited by Abraham R. Besdin. Rabbinical

Council of America. June, 1972. Quoted in Schindler, Ruben. “The Halakhic Framework

of Mourning and Bereavement: Its Implications in Dealing with Crisis.” Journal of

Orthodox Jewish Thought 15 (Fall, 1975): 69-80.

Søvik, Atle Ottesen. The Problem of Evil and the Power of God. Studies in Systematic Theology

8. Edited by Stephen Bevans and Miikka Ruokanen. Leiden, The Netherlands:

Koninklijke Brill, 2011.

Spiegleberg, Wilhelm. “Der Siegeshymnus des Merneptah auf der Plinders Petrie-Stele.”

Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 34, no. 1 (1896): 1-25.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “The Inscriptions.” In Petrie, W. M. Flinders. Six Temples at Thebes: 1896. 20-30.

London, England: Bernard Quaritch, 1897.

368

Stec, David M. The Text of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition. Arbeiten

Zur Geschicte Des Antiken Judentums Und Des Urchristentums 20. Leiden, The

Netherlands: Brill, 1994.

Steinberg, Paul. Celebrating the Jewish Year: The Fall Holidays Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur,

Sukkot. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2007.

Steinemann, I. Le Livre de Job. Lectio Divina 16. Paris, France: Les Éditions Du Cerf, 1955.

Steinmetz, Sol. Dictionary of Jewish Usage: A Guide to the Use of Jewish Terms. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005.

Stokes, Ryan E. “The Devil Made David Do It… or ‘Did’ He? The Nature, Identity, and Literary

Origins of the ‘Satan’ in 1 Chronicles 21:1.” Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 1

(Spring, 2009): 91-106.

Stolz, F. s.v. “River .” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible: DDD. Rev. ed. Edited

by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Grand Rapids, MI:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999.

Stone, Michael E. “The Book(s) Attributed to Noah.” Dead Sea Discoveries 13, no. 1 (2006): 4-

23.

Strahan, James. The Book of Job Interpreted. Edinburgh, Scotland: T & T Clark, 1913.

Stroebe, Margaret, and Henk Schut. “Culture and Grief.” Bereavement Care 17, no. 1 (Spring,

1998): 7-11.

Stuhlmann, Matthias Heinrich. Hiob: Ein religiöses Gedicht: Aus Dem Hebräischen Neu

übersetzt, Geprüft Und Erläutert. Hamburg: Fr. Perthes, 1804.

Taylor, Richard S. The Theological Formation. Vol. 3, Exploring Christian Holiness. Kansas

City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1985.

Taylor, Thomas, trans., The Metaphysics of Aristotle. London, England: Davis, Wilks, and

Taylor, 1801.

Tebes, Juan Manuel. “‘You Shall not Abhor an Edomite, For He is Your Brother’: The Tradition

of Esau and the Edomite Genealogies from an Anthropological Perspective.” The Journal

of Hebrew Scriptures 6, no. 6 (2006): 2-30.

Terrien, Samuel. “The Book of JOB.” In The Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 3. Edited by George

Arthur Buttrick, Walter Russell Bowie, Paul Scherer, John Knox, Samuel Terrien, and

Nolan B. Harmon, 877-1198. New York: Abingdon Press, 1954.

Thaliath, Babu. “Nature of Gravitation: The Structural Intuition of Gravitation in the Framework

of Early Modern Mechanical Philosophy.” Philosophical Study 2, no. 9 (September,

2012): 595-618.

369

Thiel, W. s.v. “qāra.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Vol. 13. Edited by D. W.

Stott, G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H. J. Fabry. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing, 2004.

Ticciati, Susannah. Job and the Disruption of Identity: Reading Beyond Barth. London, England:

T&T Clark International, 2005.

Tobit, The Book of. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. https://bible.usccb.org/bible/

tobit/0.

Tsevat, Matitiahu. “The Meaning of the Book of Job.” Hebrew Union College Annual 37 (1966):

73-106.

Vanderkam, James C. “Joshua the High Priest and the Interpretation of Zechariah 3.” The

Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53, no. 4 (October, 1991): 553-70.

Vargon, Schmuel. “The Date of Composition of the Book of Job in the Context of S. D.

Luzzato’s Attitude to Biblical Criticism.” Jewish Quarterly Review 91, no. 3/4 (January –

April, 2001): 377-94.

Vicchio, Stephen J. The Book of Job: A History of Interpretation and a Commentary. Eugene,

OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020.

Vogels, Walter. “The Spiritual Growth of Job: A Psychological Approach to the Book of Job.”

Biblical Theology Bulletin 11, no. 3 (1981): 77-80.

Walkley, Charles Thomas. Commentary on the Book of Job. London, England: Revell, 1917.

Quoted in Vicchio, Stephen J. The Book of Job: A History of Interpretation and a

Commentary. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2020.

Walton, J. H., s.v. “Retribution.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry &

Writings. Edited by Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns, 1047-57. Downers Grove, IL:

IVP Academic, 2008.

Ware, Bruce A. “Despair Amidst Suffering and Pain: A Practical Outworking of Open Theism’s

Diminished View of God.” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4, no. 2 (2000): 56-

75.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith.

Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2004.

Wart, T. Adam Van. “Aquinas’s Eschatological Historiography: Job, Providence, and the

Multiple Senses of the Historical Event.” Pro Ecclesia 30, no. 1 (2020): 32-50.

Watson, Robert A. The Book of Job. The Expositor’s Bible. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. New

York, NY: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1892.

370

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Translated by J. S. Black and A.

Menzies. Edinburgh, Scotland: A & C Black, 1885.

Wendel, Adolf. Das freie Laiengebet im vorexilischen Israel. Leipzig Germany: Eduard Pfeiffer,

1932.

Wet, Chris L. de. “The Book of Tobit in Early Christianity: Greek and Latin Interpretations from

the 2nd to the 5th Century CE.” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 76, no. 4

(November, 2020): 1-13.

Wheeler, David. “Job 38:1-40:2⎯Rain on a Land where No One Lives, Oxen Who Won’t Plow

Your Field.” Review & Expositor 96, no. 3 (1999): 441-450.

White, Ellen. “Who Are the Nephilim?” Biblical Archaeology Society. February 17, 2023.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/who-are-the-

nephilim/.

Whitehead, Alfred N. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected edition. Edited by

David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. 1929. Reprint. New York, NY: The Free

Press, 1978.

Whitney, K. William, Jr. Two Strange Beasts: Leviathan and Behemoth in Second Temple and

Early Rabbinic Judaism. Number 63, Harvard Semitic Monographs. Edited by Peter

Machinist. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Wiesel, Elie. Messengers of God: Biblical Portraits and Legends. Translated by Marion Wiesel.

New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2013.

Wiggerman, Frans A. M. “The Mesopotamian Pandemonium: A Provisional Census.” Studi e

materiali di storia delle religioni 77, no. 2 (February, 2011): 298-322.

Wiley, H. Orton. Christian Theology. Vol. 1. 1941. Reprint. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press

of Kansas City, 1952.

Wiley, H. Orton. Christian Theology. Vol. 2. 1941. Reprint. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press

of Kansas City, 1953.

Wiley, H. Orton, and Paul T. Culbertson. Introduction to Christian Theology. 1946. Reprint.

Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1969.

William Davidson Foundation The. “Avot DeRabbi Natan.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria.

Translated by David Kasher. 2019. https://www.sefaria.org/Avot_D'Rabbi_Natan?tab=

contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Bava Batra.” Sefaria. Translated by Aiden Steinsaltz. https://www.sefaria.org/

Bava_Batra?tab=contents.

371

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Bava Metzia.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_

Metzia?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Berakhot.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. Translated by Aiden Steinsaltz.

https://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Eruvin.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. Translated by Aiden Steinsaltz.

https://www.sefaria.org/Eruvin?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Kiddushin.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Kiddushin?tab=

contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Niddah.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Niddah?tab=

contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Piskei Tosafot on Nedarim.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/

Piskei_Tosafot_on_Nedarim?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Rosh Hashanah.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. Translated by Aiden Steinsaltz.

https://www.sefaria.org/Rosh_Hashanah?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Sanhedrin.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. Translated by Aiden Steinsaltz.

https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Shabbat.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Shabbat?tab=

contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Sukkah.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/

Sukkah?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Taanit.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. https://www.sefaria.org/Taanit?tab=contents.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “Temurah.” William Davidson ed. Sefaria. Translated by Aiden Steinsaltz. 2019.

https://www.sefaria.org/Temurah?tab=contents.

Williams, Michael J. Basics of Ancient Ugaritic: A Concise Grammar, Workbook, and Lexicon.

Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.

Wilmington, Harold. “Article 18: Job at a Glance.” The Owner’s Manual File 28 (2017): 63-66.

Wilson, Lindsay. Job. The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Edited by J. Gordon

McConville and Craig Bartholomew. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 2015.

Wiseman, Donald J. 1 and 2 Kings. Vol. 9, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Series.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

372

Wogman, Michael. “Moses, Author of Job: Defending the Biblical God in the Roman East.”

Judaica Ukrainica 2 (2013): 21-41.

Wolde, Ellen van. “A Text-Semantic Study of the Hebrew Bible, Illustrated with Noah and Job.”

Journal of Biblical Literature 113, no. 1 (1994): 19-35.

Wolfers, David. Deep Things Out of Darkness: The Book of Job Essays and a New English

Translation. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

⎯⎯⎯⎯. “The Lord’s Second Speech in the Book of Job.” Vetus Testamentum 40, no. 4

(October, 1990): 474-99.

Woolley, C. Leonard. Ur of the Chaldees: A Record of Seven Years of Excavation. 2nd ed.

London, England: Ernest Benn Limited, 1950.

Woudenberg, René van. “A Brief History of Theodicy.” In The Blackwell Companion to the

Problem of Evil. Edited by Justin P. McBrayer and Daniel Howard-Snyder, 177-91. West

Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2013.

Wray, T. J., and Gregory Mobley. Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots. New York,

NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005.

Wyatt, N. “The Concept and Purpose of Hell: Its Nature and Development in West Semitic

Thought.” Numen 56, no. 2/3 (2009): 161-84.

Yang, Inchol. “The Presence and Absence of Marduk and YHWH.” Scandinavian Journal of the

Old Testament 35, no. 2 (2021): 187-200.

Younger, K. Lawson, Jr. A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of

Their Polities. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 13. Edited by Brian B. Schmidt. Atlanta,

GA: SBL Press, 2016.

Zappia, Dominic. “Demythologizing the Satan Tradition of Historical-Criticism: A Reevaluation

of the Old Testament Portrait of    in Light of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.”

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 29, no. 1 (2015): 117-34.

Zeitlin, Solomon. “Midrash: A Historical Study.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 44, no. 1 (July,

1953): 21-36.

Zgambo, Humphreys F., and Angelo Nicolaides. “A Brief Exposition on the Notions of Human

Suffering, Theodicy and Theocracy in the Book of Job.” Pharos Journal of Theology

103, no. 1 (2022): 1-13.

Zuckerman, Bruce. Job the Silent: A Study in Historical Counterpoint. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press, 1991.

0 views·392 pages

Arguments for the Sovereignty of God in the Book of Job PDF Free Download

Arguments for the Sovereignty of God in the Book of Job PDF free Download. Think more deeply and widely.

Uploaded by Lee Villarreal on 4/16/2026

/392

100%