Abstract
This article is a reworking of a paper that was originally presented at the Society of Biblical Literature meetings held in New Orleans in fall 2009, four years after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. To this day, twelve years later, portions of the city have not been restored, and numerous homes have not been rebuilt. Exactly ten years after Katrina, J. David Rogers, lead author of a new report in the official journal of the World Water Council, concluded that the flooding during Katrina “could have been prevented had the corps retained an external review board to double-check its flood-wall designs.”1 The book of Job struggles with the question, “Why do the innocent suffer?” This article explores a new reading of Job that points to our unrealized participation in evil systems that oppress the disenfranchised.
Introduction
The significance of the book of Job for the dispossessed in every time period and place cannot be overemphasized. The book itself is a theodicy, i.e., an attempt to defend the justice and goodness of God in spite of the existence of evil in the world. This in and of itself makes the work significant for the dispossessed, because much of the violence and evil of this world has been wielded specifically against them, often to their surprise and dismay. As a result, the dispossessed have frequently found themselves left alone, in suffering and pain, asking the question(s) “why?” and “how long?”
Specifically, the book of Job seeks to answer the question, “Why do the righteous (innocent) suffer?” This question is raised in the light of the traditional teaching found in Old Testament wisdom literature of divine retributive justice, i.e., that God will reward the righteous, but punish the wicked. This doctrine hardened into dogma in the ancient world and as such is defined in the book of Proverbs as follows: For the perverse are an abomination to the LORD, but the upright are in his confidence. The LORD’s curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the abode of the righteous. Toward the scorners he is scornful, but to the humble he shows favor. (Prov 3:32–34; NRSV)
The book of Proverbs is riddled with verses that depict this doctrine, as are many other passages of the Old Testament, especially the blessings and curses formula of Deut 28:3–6. If the doctrine of divine retribution is considered “orthodox” for early Israel, then the book of Job stands as a challenge to that doctrine in the face of circumstances and experiences that seemingly contradict it. In essence, the author (or authors) of the book are not only asking what seems to us an age-old question, “Why do the righteous suffer?” The author(s), however, are challenging a dogma of the time, and by so doing are daring to ask difficult, even uncomfortable, questions, are daring to challenge the established religious institution(s), and are forging forward to institute a more satisfactory answer to the problem of evil. In other words, a new time and culture calls for (and even cries for) a new conversation with more satisfactory conclusions.
This introductory conversation assumes preliminary understandings of date, authorship, and location. For the most part a reticence on authorship is well advised. Commentators have remained silent on the topic and have focused their conversations around questions related to composition instead. The book of Job as it appears in the canon is quite complex, which strengthens the probability of more than one author and in fact leads one to suggest that several sources have been combined. It is commonly concluded that the book is built from four major sources. This conversation begins with questions related to genre. There are two major genres represented in the book: the introductory and concluding prose narratives (chaps. 1–2, 42), and the poetic texts found in between (chaps. 3–41). The prose passages are simple and frequently compared to folktales. In contrast, the poetic pieces are difficult and complex, filled with unusual words and thoughts. This has led many to conclude that the two genres represent the work of more than one author and that the poetic pieces have been inserted into what was originally one simple prose narrative. Secondly, the Elihu character appears only in chapters 32–37, which leads most to suggest these chapters are a later insertion. Finally, some suggest the God speeches (chaps. 38–41) were added or modified later.
In addition, there are several complications that have led some to suggest additional sources or corruptions in the text. Chapter 28 suddenly breaks into a seemingly unrelated discussion of mining, metallurgy, and wisdom, which leads to the argument that it is a later insertion. In the third cycle, the Bildad speech is unusually short (chap. 25) and the Zophar speech does not exist at all. At the same time, a couple of Job’s speeches in the third cycle seem contradictory. Consequently, some scholars want to add part of Job’s speech to Bildad’s (i.e., 26:5–14) as well as create a Zophar speech from chapters 24:18–20, 22–25, and 27:8–23.
Thus, scholars tend to suggest several stages in the compilation of the book. It must be noted, however, that all such conclusions are nothing more than theories for compilation, as we have no concrete manuscript evidence to support the stages suggested. In my opinion, it seems reasonable to accept the supposition that an astute poet used an existing prose tale as an opportunity to stage the debate found in chapters 3–41. Simultaneously, the arguments for the later insertion of the Elihu speeches, and perhaps also chapter 28, are logical. It does not seem necessary, however, to doubt the authenticity of the third cycle or the God speeches. In any event, the book in its current form is what we have to read and has been created for that purpose. Although the conversation of sources may give us some understanding with regard to differing genres and styles, it does not assist our comprehension of the final product. Consequently, for the purposes of this article the book will be read as a unified whole and each piece as a distinct part of an overarching rhetorical conversation.
Also difficult for the book of Job, because of the nature of the writing, are questions related to date and location. For the latter, there are few clues in the book itself. The story is situated in Edom, 2 but this does not necessitate Edom as the location for composition. The story itself provides no clues beyond the initial locating of the characters, and in fact the geographical location plays no significant role for meaning.
The dates proposed for the book range from the tenth to the third century BCE. The story is placed in the patriarchal period, but this does not necessitate the date for its authorship/composition. Ezekiel referred to Job as an important person alongside Noah and Daniel (Ezek 14:14–20), and traditionally it has been understood as one of the oldest in the canon. But, modern scholars are skeptical of this claim to antiquity. The book itself is completely silent on the issue, with no references being made to historical events. Some internal evidence suggests, however, affinities with other canonical books and can lead one to conclude the work in its final form is post Babylonian exile. Affinities are alleged between Job 3 and Jer 20:7–18, as well as stylistic similarities between Job and Isa 40–55. These connections suggest a time either before the early sixth century BCE (if Job is prior) or in the late sixth or early fifth century BCE (if Job is later). There is no way of determining, however, which text(s) came first. Job 7:17–18 is certainly a parody on Psalm 8, but it is impossible to date this Psalm. Finally, Job 3:4 seems to be a parody on Gen 1:3—a text typically dated post-exile (6th century BCE).
Job and modern culture(s)
Though an ancient text, reading the book of Job in contemporary culture is overwhelmingly popular. It would seem this is, in large part, because of the age-old struggle to comprehend the juxtaposition of a loving God and the problem of evil. From the time of the ancients till today, we have all struggled with the question, “Why do the righteous/innocent suffer?”
We are told in chapters 1 and 2 three times (Job 1:1, 8; 2:3) that Job is blameless (tam) and upright (yshr); and in chapter 2 we are told this even after he has been financially 3 destroyed “for no reason” (2:3). As one who has become dispossessed, Job shifts into a lament (chap. 3), cursing the very day he was born. As we walk through the book, we find that Job, while engaging the three friends, also spends considerable time engaging God. In fact, he makes several requests of God, and through these requests we are able to view Job’s shifting responses—his growth in his determination for vindication.
Job’s search for a means of vindication
First, we find Job’s hope to die: “O that I might have my request … that it would please God to crush me” (Job 6:8–9); then Job contemplates a lawsuit with God, but concludes that God would surely win because of God’s greater strength (“who has resisted him, and succeeded?” 9:4), followed by a request in chapter 10 that God would leave Job alone (“Let me alone, that I may find a little comfort,” 10:20). In chapter 13, Job articulates his certainty that he will be vindicated, all the while convinced that if he presents his case he will surely be killed by God for doing so (vv 13–19): “I have indeed prepared my case; I know that I shall be vindicated” (13:18). Yet, in chapter 14, Job looks for a (as Balentine calls it) “postmodern encounter with a different God”: 4 “O that you would hide me in Sheol, that you would conceal me until your wrath is past” (14:13). In chapter 16, using an allusion to blood crying out from the ground in the Cain and Abel story, Job cries for the earth to give witness: “O earth, do not cover my blood; let my outcry find no resting place.” Job’s witness, however, is in heaven—God’s self (16:18–19). In chapter 19 (vv 23, 25), Job declares, “O that my words were written down! … For I know that my redeemer lives.” In 23:3–4, Job expresses his desire to find God in order to argue his case before him: “O, that I knew where I might find him … I would lay my case before him.” And in 31:35 he cries, “O that I had one to hear me! (Here is my signature! Let the Almighty answer me!) O that I had the indictment written by my adversary!”
In these words, we hear Job’s wish for his day in court, and his confidence in his vindication.
Job’s accusations against God
Simultaneously, Job has been bringing accusations against God. In chapter 9, Job accuses God of rank injustice (Job 9:22–24): … he destroys both the blameless and the wicked … he mocks at the calamity of the innocent. The earth is given into the hand of the wicked …
In chapter 12, Job declares that God does it all—God builds up and tears down: “He makes nations great, then destroys them; he enlarges nations, then leads them away” (12:23). “The deceived and the deceivers are God’s” (12:16b).
In chapter 14, Job states, “the waters wear away the stones; the torrents wash away the soil of the earth; so you destroy the hope of mortals” (14:19).
In chapter 16, Job declares, “God gives me up to the ungodly, and casts me into the hands of the wicked. I was at ease, and he broke me in two; he seized me by the neck and dashed me to pieces; he set me up as his target … He slashes open my kidneys, and shows no mercy … He bursts upon me again and again” (16:11–14).
In chapter 21, Job complains the wicked remain unpunished by God: “Why do the wicked live on, reach old age, and grow mighty in power?” (v 7). Even though they repudiate God, “They say to God … What is the Almighty (el shadi) that we should serve him?” (vv 14–15).
In chapter 24, Job shifts away from self 5 into solidarity with the poor and builds the case for the dispossessed, how they are continually oppressed by the wicked, how they wander the land homeless, naked, and hungry, and how they cry out for help, “yet God pays no attention to their prayer” (v 12).
The three friends build their case against Job
Meanwhile, the three friends continue to build their case against Job. They begin with the basics.
“Can mortals be righteous before God?” (Job 4:17); “… therefore do not despise the discipline of the Almighty” (5:17).
“If you will seek God and make supplication to the Almighty, if you are pure and upright, surely then he will rouse himself for you” (8:5–6).
“Know then that God exacts of you less than your guilt deserves” (11:6).
The friends encourage Job to acknowledge his sin and repent so that God might restore him to his rightful status.
By the third set of speeches, pleasantries are gone and the friends attack Job viciously.
“Is not your wickedness great? … For you have exacted pledges from your family for no reason, and stripped the naked of their clothing … no water to the weary … no bread to the hungry … sent widows away empty-handed … crushed the arms of the orphan” (22:5–9).
“How then can a mortal be righteous before God? … how much less a mortal, who is a maggot …” (25:4–6).
The three friends never get out of the theological box labeled retributive justice. As Job continues to proclaim his innocence, their accusations become more and more intense, culminating in Eliphaz’s accusations that Job has never fulfilled the three-pronged ethic of caring for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner, 6 and in fact has done the opposite by acting violently against them and has thus placed Job in the category of the wicked. Bildad’s words at the end are few, but distinct. In Job 25:6, Bildad calls Job a maggot.
Elihu and God speeches
What are we to make of all these accusations and dialogue? As many have commented, the end of the book seems unsatisfactory for an answer to all that has been discussed and the questions that have been raised.
However, there are several statements in the Elihu and God speeches that have haunted me over the years. In Job 32:2, we hear that Elihu was angry for two reasons, namely because: (i) Job justified himself rather than God; and (ii) the three friends had declared Job to be in the wrong, yet had found no answer. It seems to me Elihu has hit the nail on the head. Following this forceful opening, Elihu emphasizes four things: God speaks in mysterious ways; God is greater than any mortal; God will not do wrong; and God deals with the wicked.
Both of Elihu’s points of anger are emphasized in the God speeches. In Job 40:18, God questions Job: “Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” These questions suggest Job is also stuck in the doctrine of divine retributive justice, for given his knowledge of his own innocence, the only argument he has been able to muster is that God is unjust in God’s behavior toward him. Later, in the closing narrative (42:7–8), the three friends are reprimanded for not speaking what is right of God. This points to Elihu’s second point of frustration, that the friends have accused Job, but have not brought resolution to the problem. Given their emphasis on the justice of God, they also are caught in the doctrine of retributive justice; their only alternative conclusion is that Job must have sinned. Thus, through the inclusion of the Elihu and God speeches, we, the readers, are brought to a critical moment. If God is acting justly and Job is blameless and upright, then how do we make sense of what is going on theologically?
The wicked
There is one entity that is continually discussed in the book against which all and any accusations seem to be acceptable—the wicked. So, the easy answer to the dilemma described above is to blame the wicked! But who are the wicked? The term used most often in the book to refer to the wicked is rash’a (31 times; 26 times as a noun; five times as a verb). Of the twenty-six nominal appearances, sixteen are plural. In chapter 24, along with substantial statements made on behalf of the poor and dispossessed, Job makes numerous statements about the behavior of the wicked: they are defined as those who remove landmarks, seize flocks, drive the donkey away from the orphan, take the widow’s ox for a pledge, thrust the needy off the road, snatch an orphan child from the breast, take as pledge an infant from the poor, rebel against the light, kill the poor and needy, commit adultery, work in the dark, and in verse 22 they are referred to as the mighty (‘byr).
The same word is used to refer to the wicked in Job 34:20 and is used metaphorically in both instances to refer to enemies. A synonym is found in chapter 34, kbyr, also used to refer to the wicked in verse 24, but used to refer to God in verse 17 (so, too, 36:5, twice). This synonym is found only in poetry. So, the wicked in chapters 24 and 34 are referred to as the mighty, twice with a word that is used only for enemies and twice with a word that can be used in a positive or negative sense.
The fact that the wicked are most often referred to in the plural suggests this is a category of people—a community, perhaps. Given they are referred to as the mighty (‘byr), with a clear negative connotation and given the catalogue of crimes they commit that includes taking pledges, land, flocks, work animals, and children, it seems we are looking at a group/community that is economically formalized. We are hearing a description of the haves and have nots, the land owners vs the dispossessed, but also a description of a culturally legitimated system, albeit a system that works against the three-pronged ethic for which Israel is famous: to care for the widow, the orphan, and the sojourner. Even in the book of Job itself, it is made clear that the neglect of this three-pronged ethic is the greatest crime of all. 7 Eliphaz builds up to this accusation against Job in his third discourse (chap. 22)—an accusation Job later emphatically denies (chap. 29). Yet, Job accuses God of the very same crime in chapter 24.
Given this socio-economic reality, perhaps we need to hear God’s rebuke of Job in chapter 40 anew. “Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” While Job is upright and blameless, has suffered for “no reason,” and has personally provided care for the widow, the orphan, and the sojourner, he is also a landowner, and as such is a part of the economic system that is oppressing the poor and dispossessed.
Balentine makes much of God’s hiddenness in the book of Job, 8 noting that no matter how hard Job searches in the first 35 poetic chapters he cannot find God. This is in fact a common theme throughout the Psalms, especially the lament psalms, as well as the prophets. When the psalmist refers to God hiding God’s face it seems to reference God shunning the psalmist, or the community. 9 When God is hiding, God’s care and protection are not enabled. So, the psalmist cries out of his/her distress: turn your face toward me/us, do not turn away from me/us. Yet, one has to wonder if God’s hiddenness in the book of Job serves the same purpose. Perhaps God is silent because it is not God who has created the plight of the poor and dispossessed, but the wicked. The book seems to go to great lengths to show that God is not the creator of the oppression the poor are experiencing, nor that of Job. Satan (the accuser) is the instigator and worker of evil in Job’s life, although God goes along with it. 10 What is more, the wicked are the doers of evil in Job’s world. Yet we are seeing something new here. Unlike the story of the Exodus in which God is at work both hardening Pharaoh’s heart (Exod 10:20) and delivering the people from Egypt, here God gives permission and watches what unfolds. 11
Gutierrez makes much of God’s master plan as it flows from the God speeches in Job 38:1–42:6. 12 Perhaps God’s hiddenness in the book of Job is explained by the fact that the book theologically emphasizes a transcendent God. The plan has been implemented and God is pleased there is a Job-like character who chooses good instead of evil, even when tested. Job exists, however, in an imperfect system, created by the wicked. Perhaps Job’s attention to the poor in chapter 24 has opened his eyes to the systemic evil around him, and perhaps this is why, in the final narrative when he receives everything back twofold, there is no mention of servants in his household, and his daughters are named and receive an inheritance.
So, what am I saying? I am suggesting that the evidence stated above has led me to read the book in a new way. Job, after entering the world of the dispossessed, struggles to make sense out of his new misfortune. His inclination is to turn to God and accuse God of being unjust. Convinced of his own innocence, Job’s demands to God become increasingly more aggressive until God makes an appearance and asks a few questions. Meanwhile, Job’s three friends give an exhaustive list of arguments to convince Job he has sinned and he must repent. But Job is not buying it and neither is God. God’s very pointed question, “Will you condemn me that you may be justified?” cuts to the chase. The answer is not that God is unjust; the answer is not that the individual is sinful; the answer is in systemic evil, of which Job, by virtue of his prosperity, is a participant.
A Salvadoran hermeneutic
A few years ago, I attended a special lecture by Jon Sobrino at Santa Clara University in California. After the lecture, Sobrino was asked to comment on his current understanding of liberation theology. His answer still rings in my ears; he said, “What is liberation theology? We need to ask, liberation from what?” Then he answered his own question: “liberation from ourselves, from our selfishness.” He went on to say, “We live in a world that crucifies people, and we have to ask ourselves what have we done to put them on the cross and what can we do to take them down from the cross?” He then encouraged us to follow the path of poverty, because, and these are his words again, “a civilization of poverty is a path toward humanization, while a civilization of riches is a path toward dehumanization.” 13
In January 2009, I took a study group from the GTU to El Salvador. I would like to close with an excerpt from one student’s paper (with her permission, of course) that I believe supports, enhances, and encourages this reading of the book of Job.
The Misa Salvadoreňa is a sung Mass liturgy of enormous significance for the people of El Salvador. It was composed by Guillermo Cuellar. The Mass gives “lyrical and liturgical expression to the struggle of God’s people for peace, justice and freedom from oppression … The Gloria from the mass was commissioned by Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero who was assassinated the day after the piece was presented to him.”
14
This Mass is totally remarkable for the way that it integrates liturgy, faith, and daily reality (primarily everyday struggles, but joys as well, like the appreciation of food, of Communion elements). Each movement of the Misa Salvadoreňa was inspired by a specific event. For example, “The Lord have Mercy” was a brazen scream to God after the murder of Father Octavio Ortiz, his head crushed by an army tank: Lord have mercy Lord have mercy on your people … We are the lowly, And boots and tanks Smash in their fury The faces of those who live and die For us and for you.
The Misa Salvadoreňa is intended to teach and to speak to people’s consciences. It expresses a spirituality of liberation, especially God’s preference (predilicción) for the poor. Misa Salvadoreňa is intimately connected to liberation theology. One place in which this connection is particularly clear is in the “Interlecciónal,” which urges the people not to believe automatically what other people have told them (such as that they should focus their hope on the next life): Resign yourselves and work, the boss has told us, For only in the other life will you have salvation; But today God does not tolerate even New Pharaoh And sends all the people to carry out their liberation.
This stanza from “Interlecciónal” also focuses attention on the themes of God’s opposition to injustice, Exodus, and the role of human effort in liberation. 15
Conclusion
Perhaps God is not really hidden in the book of Job after all; perhaps God is at work in the struggle as much as the resolution of chapters 38–42. The Misa Salvadoran acknowledges a just God, a wicked enemy, and the need for the innocent victims to take part in their salvation. Theologically, God is understood to be as present in the struggle as the resolution. Job yearns for, and eventually demands, a meeting with God, and ultimately gets one. Has God, however, been absent through his struggle? Nothing in the book suggests God has been shunning Job—in fact, quite the opposite. God speaks of Job with great pride in chapters 1 and 2, and in chapter 10 Job pleads with God to leave him alone (10:20). In 38:2 God challenges Job’s language (“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?”), yet God ultimately affirms Job’s speech in 42:7 (“… you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has”).
Just as the Salvadoran struggle has caused the people to shift theologically, to see the justice of God and their societal role with new eyes, Job’s struggle has caused him to shift theologically and to see the justice of God as it relates to his societal role with new eyes. In chapter 24, Job shifts into a mode of solidarity with the poor, oppressed, and dispossessed, and in chapter 42 Job “repents” 16 of his uninformed utterances about God’s plan and purpose in the world (vv 1–6). The accuser, steeped in the theology of retributive justice, was determined to get Job to curse God (turn away from God), but instead Job struggled to comprehend his situation in new ways. Job did not cease to search, cry out, demand, and question until he came to a point of resolution. Similarly, the indigenous Salvadorans will not cease to search, cry out, demand, and question until they have reached resolution. Both Job and the Salvadorans have been pushed to understand God, themselves, and their role in society in new ways. By the end of the book of Job the doctrine of retributive justice no longer holds. It has been made clear that the innocent can and often do suffer, the wicked can and often do prosper, and God is just. To make sense of this the Salvadorans have concluded they must participate in their liberation. Job has concluded he cannot condemn God in order to justify himself (40:8). Perhaps the two truths are related.
The Salvadorans of which I speak are the victims. Job is a leader, turned victim, restored to his leadership position. By Job chapter 24, these two entities are in solidarity (i.e., victims and Job-like characters). When these two entities come into solidarity, the presence of systemic evil is revealed, and so too the presence of God so that the work of liberation can take place.
Jon Sobrino ended his presentation on November 6, 2009 with these words: “Rest in peace martyrs and may your memory keep us from resting in peace.”
This article was created and presented in honor of those who have entered the ranks of the dispossessed after Hurricane Katrina. And so we may say the same of the victims of Katrina—“Rest in peace victims of Katrina and may your memory keep us from resting in peace.”
Footnotes
2.
Most scholars suppose the reference to the land of Uz refers to Edom.
3.
I am emphasizing Job’s destruction as financial in that all his fortunes have been destroyed, as well as his children killed. As children (especially sons, in particular the first son) are the ones to carry on the family name, business, etc., they are a significant component of the financial well-being of the family. Although a narrow description of all his loss, to focus in particular on Job’s financial ruin is accurate. For the purpose of this article I will give primary attention to economic specifics as the major emphasis of the article is a focus on the dispossessed.
4.
S. E. Balentine, Job (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2006), 362.
5.
Following Gutierrez (On Job: God-talk and the Suffering of the Innocent [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998], 31–38), who suggests Job’s speech in chapter 24 reflects a conversion from a focus on personal misfortune to solidarity with the community of dispossessed and oppressed.
6.
Israel’s emphasis on the three-pronged ethic of caring for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner has long been noted. Although I cannot say for sure which scholar first noted this observation, it is to be found in textbooks dating from von Rad to the present.
7.
By virtue of the fact that this topic (i.e., care for the widow, orphan, and foreigner) does not appear until the third discourse cycle, it is emphasized (rhetorically) as the ultimate sin. The arguments heat up as the poetry of the book progresses, with the strongest accusations coming toward the end.
8.
Balentine, Job (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 359–379.
9.
See LeAnn Snow Flesher, “Rhetorical Use of the Negative Petition in the Lament Psalms” (PhD diss., Drew University, 1999), 57–59.
10.
The NRSV translates Satan, which makes the Hebrew a proper noun. I prefer to translate the noun as “the accuser,” so as to distinguish between the dualistic view of Satan and God in the New Testament vs the slight shift we find here in Job (see note 11).
11.
Of course, we do not have the fully developed duality we find in the New Testament in the book of Job, only a slight shift away from a God who is credited for all activity. Here God is not the one inflicting the crushing blows (although Job seems to think so), yet God has given permission for “the accuser” to do so. And God is watching, allowing, initially pleased with Job’s response, coming on the scene only at the end to confront Job’s manner of thinking/speaking.
12.
The tone of challenge now comes from Yahweh: “Who is this, obscuring my intentions with his ignorant words?” (38:2). The Hebrew ‘esah (see Isa 14:26; 19:17; 25:1; 28:29; Jer 32:19–20; Prov 19:21) translates as “intentions” or “plans,” which means a plan of action—a project. After studying a good number of passages, Leveque comes to the conclusion that “one constant is inescapable: the ‘esah of God always refers to God’s action in history.” Gustavo Gutierrez, On Job (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998), 69.
13.
Jon Sobrino, S. J., “Martyrs … ” (Presidential lecture, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, November 6, 2009).
14.
Karen Hastings-Flegel, “Music of El Salvador,” a research paper in partial fulfillment of the requirements for FTRS 3836 El Salvador Immersion, April 2009, 15.
15.
Ibid., 16.
16.
Much ink has been spilled over Job’s repentance in 42:6. I am suggesting in this analysis that once Job has had his encounter with God he comes to understand that his accusations against God (i.e., God is unjust) are not warranted and that God does have a plan and purpose for creation and that God is actively at work to bring it to fruition. This, in my reading, becomes the moment when Job shifts out of the doctrine of retributive justice and no longer finds it necessary to pit his innocence against God’s just acts. Thus, Job is repenting in the true sense of the Hebrew word (nhm); he is turning away from a previous thought, attitude, and behavior to another (i.e., distinct from a confession of sin—which he does not make anywhere in the book).