Many descriptions about the biblical book of Job picture it in some way to explain why the righteous suffer. After much reflection this cannot be the theme at all. The righteous suffer for various reasons but the book of Job does not deal with this topic. I believe studies in the Psalms or Habakkuk would yield more fruitful results. Sure, Job suffers, but he is not righteous (yet) which happens in ch. 42. therefore, the book can’t be about “why the righteous suffer.” Instead, I believe, God confronts Job for his false ideas of how humans are reconciled to God. I see Job as a false religionist who thinks that right-standing before God is like a vending machine. He thinks that righteousness is mechanistic and automatic by using a token for himself and buying it for his children. Reading all of Job’s speeches, except in ch. 42, shows that the poem deals with an angry fool. No godly person would say what Job has said.
The key verse that shows this idea of madness is 1.5:
And when the days of the feast had run their course, Job would send and consecrate them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually. (ESV)
Immediately after vs. 5, the text turns to the scene in heaven where a seemingly periodic angel check-in sequence appears. God seems to recommend Job to Satan in order to test Job’s righteousness and self-confidence.
Some will, no doubt, object that, at least on the surface, the text makes Job a hero who is tormented unjustly. However, in light of the rest of the book of Job and the bible’s consistent depiction of human depravity and the workings of redemption through Christ, Job’s case becomes clearer.
The genre of the poem of Job is a type of wisdom literature and readers will need to evalute the book along those lines. When, in 1.1, it states that Job was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil, it is completely contrary to the rest of scripture which teaches that humans are fallen and sinful and need saving. In fact, other biblical wisdom literature reads: Who can say, “I have made my heart pure;
I am clean from my sin”? (Prov. 20.9 ESV) The implication of the text is “no one.” Of all the real heroes of scripture none were ever given such a designation. I believe the phrase speaks to the mad punctillouisness of Job and especially how others in society would regard him, a sort of description from general society viewing Job’s behavior. This can be likened to Ecclesiastes’ view of activities “under the sun.” Neither is Proverbs prescriptive when it states: Bad, bad,” says the buyer, but when he goes away, then he boasts (20.14 ESV). Proverbs, here, is actually teaching the seller to be wary of negotiating strategies and lies in an indirect way.
So, what is wrong about Job’s reaction to his children’s possible behavior that it would arouse God’s mission to Satan? In a word: unbiblical, which I will show later.
Job, in my view, is one of the oldest books written and preserved. It may have come into Israel’s hands providentially during their Wilderness Wanderings under Moses. However, this is not at all certain. The place names (toponyms) in Job suggest the region of Edom. The time that the events in Job took place (I believe the Joban Poem records real events and persons) is probably during Israel’s sojourn in Egypt or even during the time of Israel’s first Patriarchs. The penultimate verse of the book seems to indicate the timeframe if one notes the ages given for other biblical persons in Genesis.
Another aspect which makes the book of Job difficult to discern accurately is the text’s transmission or rather the preservation of manuscripts during the transmission. Most ancient texts have suffered these same problems and sometimes these difficulties can be resolved by textual criticism. Job, however, is unique in several ways. Because the text is so ancient and didn’t have the benefit of Hebrew scribes, which were constituted during the nation’s founding under Moses, the text is garbled or defective in certain sections. For instance, who is speaking in ch. 28? (Probably Elihu).
Job lives in a pastoral society where animals were the principal means of wealth. The writing of the poem would have been on animal skins suitable for the purpose (young lambs with clear skin presumably along with the use of black soot ink for the writing). To make a scroll long enough to hold all the text, sewing together of several skins would likely have occurred like later Israeli practices.
It is obvious that at some point(s) the text became fragmentary in several sections with the reconstruction of it faulty. One can imagine how difficult such a book as Job would be to the scribes recording the text. A single animal skin is capable of holding only so much text, but the poem has speeches between several speakers in an alternating manner. The scribe would seek to keep the speakers separate as best as possible. Since the speeches are different lengths, it would present a challenge of when to start a new skin or try to cram the text into the former one. Also, since the headings introducing the next speaker would be at the top of a new skin, and thus along the edge or near the margin, mix ups could easily occur since these areas would be the first to be damaged by usage over time.
An excellent commentary that analysizes these translocations of the text is David J. A. Clines’ three-volume commentary on Job in the Word Biblical Commentary. In it he compares other commentators’ evaluations and interacts with them like most critical commentaties. The difference is one of magnitude. It is a very thorough examination which I can endorse without agreeing on every detail. Yet, even Clines does not see the problem Job is creating with his unbiblical sacrifices. While he notes that Job is neurotically anxious in his scruples of the right-standing of his children, he doesn’t analyze the theology of Job’s cultic practices.
Despite possible translocations in the text, the gist of what the different parties are saying is clear enough. Both what Job has said and his friend’s replies doesn’t matter that much since “The Almighty” will reject their contents. Only Elihu is not reproved indicating his words were correct.
Job is not a priest yet. In chapter 42, God tell Eliphaz and his two friends to bring seven bulls and seven rams and to sacrifice them for themselves and then Job will pray for them. Here, Job may be acting as a priest by praying for them. Job doesn’t offer the sacrifice for them as he did previously for his children now that he is redeemed (see 42.3-6). He can pray for others as God commanded him to do. Also, Job must forgive his friends for their misguided counsel. While not mentioned in the text, this seems more natural in the redeemed person’s life (since they have been forgiven). They have brought their burnt offering and are reconcilled to God as Job is in the final chapter.
The timeframe of Job is before the Mosaic Law and therefore cultic practices need to be analyzed by Patriarchal sacrifices and Cain and Ables’ cultic practices. Job could not actually consecrate his children into right-standing before God since redemption is individual and highly personal. Why couldn’t Able just take another one of his lambs and sacrifice it for his brother Cain and all would have been well between them?
Noah and the Hebrew Patriarchs offered sacrifices mainly at God’s bidding and then received some divine revelation or instruction. All of the O. T. sacrifices in some manner foreshadowed Christ and were a sign of human redemption accomplished by Him. Therefore, Job was not fulfilling the correct symbolic pattern later instituted in the Law of Moses. There is no hint in all the Mosaic Law that another may act for an unwilling participant. Even the Day of Atonement sacrifice would not cover the individual who didn’t pay the half shekel enrollment tax. Generally, for the Sin Offering, the worshipper would have to place his hands on the animal victim’s head and confess their sin. There is no hint in Job that the children individually sought reconcilliation. Job thought he could act on their behalf without any basis from God or revealed scripture. It is uncertain for how long Job did this but that it was his regular custom.
This false practice of Job needed correction and this is why, after vs.5, the narration shifts to the heavenly realm in vs. 6. I think its a signal for what Job’s problem really was. In his madness (neuroticism), Job anxiously wanted the highest ideal for his children not knowing he was in error.
I think Job had to lose it all to come to a place where he could receive correction. After all the scornful speeches from Job, God answered Him personally out of a whirlwind. Only then did Job retract his words and repent of his folly. The cultic sacrifices in Ch.42 show the correct procedure for forgiveness. The friends had misapplied their ideas of retributive justice to Job without realizing Job’s real error. Job finally spoke correct words about God: Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know (vs. 42.3 NIV) and repented (42.6). This verse is what God meant when He said: to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” (42.7 NIV).
