Job 8

Due to copyright restrictions, we are linking the text rather than quoting it all. Job 8 ESV.

Bildad’s response to Job stands in stark contrast to Eliphaz’s earlier response in chapters 4-5. Eliphaz had adopted a somewhat gentle tone, although he also said some things that were a bit careless by the end of his speech. Bildad’s rejoinder, however, lacks any sense of compassion for the plight of Job. Indeed, Bildad implies Job is to blame for what has occurred.

Question 1: What are the propositions of the passage?

1) Bildad responds to Job.
2) Bildad asks how long Job will run his mouth.
3) Bildad asks if God perverts justice, implying a negative answer.
4) Bildad says that Job’s children died due to their sins.
5) Bildad says Job should plead for mercy.
6) He says that if Job is pure and righteous, then God will restore him to even greater position.
7) Bildad says that Job’s original position was small.
8) Bildad tells Job to consider what the traditions of their forefathers have said.
9) He points out that our lives are short and “a shadow.”
10) He says that the forefathers will teach Job.
11) Bildad compares those who forget God to withered plants.
12) Bildad says that the hopes of godless people perish, and they have no confidence.
13) He compares the trust of a godless man to a spider’s web.
14) He says the godless lean against their house and it falls, presumably because it has no foundation.
15) Bildad says when the godless are destroyed, no one remembers them.
16) Bildad points out that that is “the joy of his way”, indicating that there is no joy for the godless.
17) Bildad claims God will never reject a blameless man.
18) Bildad claims God will never accept an evildoer.
19) Bildad says God will bring joy back to Job.
20) Bildad says those who hate Job will be shamed.
21) He finishes by saying the tents of the wicked will be destroyed.

Question 2: What does this passage teach about God?

This gives us Bildad’s view of God. In Bildad’s view, God is nice to those who are righteous and He destroys those who are wicked. The implication of this is that Job obviously deserves what is happening to him, since God would never do such things to a righteous man. Bildad’s ultimate concept of God can be found in the clause: “if you are pure and upright, surely then he will rouse himself for you”.

However, we know that Bildad’s view is incorrect, for the narrative itself has explained that Job is blameless. Therefore, this view of God is not true.

Question 3: What does this passage teach about man?

The most striking aspect of Bildad’s speech is that he roots it in the teaching of the forefathers: “For inquire, please, of bygone ages, and consider what the fathers have searched out.” If you recall, Eliphaz claimed to have seen a form, which he assumed was God. Eliphaz therefore gave advice based on what he believed to have been revelation. In contrast, Bildad appeals to traditions.

And the traditions truly are not that different from what we see around us today. Aside from Christianity, virtually every religion has some kind of salvation-by-works concept, where if we do what is right then we earn favor from God. Thus, Bildad’s conclusions fit right in with what the vast majority of mankind thinks. If we see someone who is suffering torments, our first assumption is that they have done something to deserve it. This is our human nature. Yet clearly Bildad was in the wrong on that point, and we too must take care under such circumstances. Simply because a person is suffering trials does not mean that that person is a sinner. Indeed, that person could be suffering precisely because he is righteous, as happened to Job.

Another thing we learn from Bildad is how not to try to offer compassion to someone who is suffering. This is not as hard and fast a rule, given that sometimes harsh language is necessary to “snap” someone out of a negative mode of thinking. Nevertheless, in the previous chapters Job has lamented that none has shown him compassion in spite of his suffering. Bildad’s response is to ignore Job’s request, and indeed proclaim two harsh falsehoods: 1) that Job’s children deserved to die for being sinners; 2) that Job himself deserves his predicaments for some kind of sinful behavior. Bildad therefore shows no tact at all in dealing with someone who is suffering, and indeed may be seen as someone who is fully convinced of an error and who will storm ahead with that error, no matter who he hurts in the process. (Yet even if he were speaking truth instead of error, Bildad’s methods are more likely to cause harm than to heal.)

Ultimately, Bildad’s vehement speech here teaches us that even if we are fully convinced of something because everyone thinks it’s true (i.e., appealing to the traditions they grew up with), you can still be in grievous error.

Theology , ,

Flat

I woke up this morning to discover the front tire of my bike is rather under-inflated. This is actually only the second problem I’ve had with my bike in 700 miles. The first time was also a flat tire. This is a significant improvement from my previous bike, which had broken a spoke three or four times and had at least three flat tires by this point in its life. (The mechanical failures every 50 miles or so were why I decided to get rid of that one.)

It does make me ponder though. If one is writing a commentary on Job, should one expect more of these types of events? You know, like as a test? :-)

Personal

Job 6 – 7

Due to copyright restrictions, we are linking the text rather than quoting it directly. Job 6-7 ESV.

Before delving into the propositions of these two chapters, I wanted to briefly examine the structure of the book so far. As we’ve already discussed, the first two chapters of Job function as a bit of a prologue. The prologue itself can be broken down as follows:

A. Job is righteous.
B. Satan says Job will fall if his property and family is destroyed; God permits this.
A. Job remains righteous.
B. Satan says Job will fall if his personal health is destroyed; God permits this.
A. Job remains righteous.

Now, after the prologue, we are seeing a similar type of interaction develop. Thus far, it goes like this:

C. Job issues a lament and wishes he was dead.
D. Eliphaz critiques Job.
C. Job denies the critique and wishes he was dead.

More specifically, Job first wishes he had been born dead; now he wishes his disease would kill him (incidentally, he is wishing for the very thing that God has constrained Satan from doing at that point). While there is nothing mystical or magical about this type of point/counter-point, the structure can help us to keep track of the narrative. Let us now move on to our three questions.

Question 1: What are the propositions of the passage?

1) Job answers Eliphaz.
2) Job wishes all his troubles were able to be weighed in a balance.
3) Job says that if his troubles could be weighed, they’d be heavier than the “sand of the sea.”
4) Job concludes that his earlier words were rash.
5) Job says that it is the arrows of God (the Almighty) that are in him.
6) Job says his spirit drinks the poison of God’s arrows.
7) Job says it is the terrors of God that are against him.
8) Job points out that animals do not complain when they have food.
9) Job points out that you can’t eat something tasteless without salt.
10) Job points out he has no appetite for such loathsome food.
11) Job requests that God crush him completely.
12) Job wishes he were cut off from God.
13) Job says this would be comfort for him.
14) He claims he has not denied the words of God.
15) Job indicates he is at the end of his strength.
16) Job questions why he should be patient at all.
17) Job rhetorically asks if he has the strength of stones or bronze (indicating that the burden he is under is obviously too heavy).
18) Job indicates all resources have been driven from him.
19) Job says his friends are withholding kindness, forsaking the fear of God.
20) He compares his brothers to torrential rivers, dark with ice and snow.
21) He indicates his brothers have abandoned him out of shame.
22) He says they came in confidence and are now disappointed.
23) He says they have become nothing.
24) Job says they see calamity and have only fear.
25) Job points out that he has asked for neither gift nor bribe, nor has he asked for them to rescue him.
26) Job indicates that if they would teach him, he would be silent.
27) Job wants to understand where he has sinned.
28) Job points out Eliphaz’s words were forceful, but “upright”.
29) Job points out that Eliphaz’s reproof does not apply to him.
30) Job points out that the speech of a despairing man is insubstantial.
31) Job questions Eliphaz’s character, claiming Eliphaz would “cast lots over the fatherless, and bargain over [his] friend.”
32) Job asks Eliphaz to look at him.
33) Job says he will not lie to Eliphaz’s face.
34) Job asks for no injustice to be done.
35) He indicates his vindication is at stake.
36) Job asks if he has spoken anything unjustly (with an indication that it is negative).
37) Job rhetorically asks if he is incapable of discerning the cause of calamity (indicating that he is certainly able to do so).
38) Job points out that man’s days are hard service.
39) Job laments his allotted months of emptiness.
40) He says nights of misery “are apportioned” to him.
41) Job’s nights are long.
42) He tosses and turns restlessly.
43) His flesh is full of dirt, covered in worms, and it hardens and breaks apart.
44) His days end without hope.
45) Job points out that his life is fleeting, like a breath.
46) He says he will never again see any good.
47) Job also says no one will behold him anymore.
48) Job will head to the grave and be no more.
49) As a result, Job says he will not restrain his mouth.
50) Job says he will speak and complain about what has happened to him.
51) He points out that when he tries to sleep, God torments him with bad dreams and visions.
52) Job says he would rather strangle and die than live.
53) He says he loathes his life and does not want to live forever.
54) Job asks to be left alone.
55) He asks for the purpose for why God tests him.
56) He asks how long God will persist in looking upon Job.
57) He asks how his sins affect God, the “watcher of mankind.”
58) He asks why God has chosen Job for this treatment.
59) He asks how he has become a burden to God.
60) He asks why God has not pardoned his sins.
61) Job says he will die.

Question 2: What does this passage teach about God?

Just as the last passage we examined taught us what Eliphaz believed about God, this shows us what Job believes about God. However, we also know that this passage is tempered by the fact that Job has said he will no longer be patient and will not be silent. In that sense, therefore, this passage more accurately reflects a distortion of the view Job would have had of God were Job not in pain.

Regardless of Job’s view, however, we do know from the rest of the passage that God is the kind of God who would bring Job to this very position. Job is left longing for death and wishing God would crush him completely, to utterly destroy him. The fact that Job is not crushed or destroyed—indeed, we know that God has made it impossible for Satan to take Job’s life—shows us that God does not want Job to die, despite Job’s wishes.

This passage also shows that God has not informed Job of why any of these events are occurring. We, having the full narrative, know that God and Satan have been holding discussions, but Job is unaware of this. Job believes that God is the ultimate cause of the suffering he is going through, and appears to be saying that he could accept this suffering if he just knew what the purpose for it was. Nevertheless, God does not give him that information. Whether this is because Job is incorrect in his assessment that he would be able to accept it, or because God doesn’t want Job to be in a position to accept it, He does not move to give Job any further data.

Question 3: What does this passage teach about man?

The first thing we can see is that Eliphaz’s help was not very helpful to Job. This often happens when we try to comfort someone who is in pain or who has been suffering. Naturally, some of what Eliphaz said was incorrect, and other portions lacked tact—still, his statements seemed genuine, yet they were ultimately unhelpful. Job rightfully points out that much of what Eliphaz reproves, while being formally correct, simply does not apply to Job.

We can easily be sympathetic to Job’s position, for we know that he is innocent and does not deserve the atrocities that he is going through—at least on a human scale. Yet we can equally be sympathetic toward the views of Eliphaz, who is only trying to help a friend who is in torment.

Job’s responses to Eliphaz are actually quite defensive, and he seems to take it to a bit of an extreme (as we all have tendencies toward). Job ends up insulting his friend, saying that his friend would gamble away the fatherless and bargain his friends (of note, the name “Job” may be related to the term “fatherless”, although it more likely is related to the term “one who suffers” instead). In short, Job questions whether his friend is truly a friend at all. Yet it does not stop there. By chapter 7, Job has gone so far as to shift his focus from Eliphaz to God, and has transferred his defensiveness from his friend to the Divine. This type of escalation is seen quite often in mankind, and I must confess it is often found in my life as well. Job’s lament that he does not understand why these events are occurring also resonates with me on a personal level, and I think I’m not alone on this.

One key point remaining to be examined is the fact that by the end of the passage, Job asks of God: “Why do you not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity?” If we remember, however, Job was said to be blameless and upright. How, then, could he ask God to pardon his transgression? Does this expose a contradiction?

The most obvious explanation, of course, is that the nature of a “pardon” is such that one who is pardoned is at that point declared to be blameless. If one’s iniquities are taken away, then one is by definition blameless. As such, Job is righteous because he is pardoned from his sins. There is no contradiction, therefore, between Job acknowledging that he has sinned and Job being described as blameless and righteous. The fact that Job was seen as offering vicarious atonement for his children earlier also helps demonstrate that he is well aware of the need to be pardoned for sinful behavior. The same is true of us as well. Though we are all sinners, if we are forgiven we are simultaneously blameless too.

Theology , ,

Job Applied

Ben Witherington recently wrote an essay dealing with the death of his daughter called, What Good Grief Looks Like When a Daughter Dies (Hat Tip to Steve Hays). One particularly troubling paragraph Witherington writes is at the end of the first page of his essay:

One primary reason I am not a Calvinist is that I do not believe in God’s detailed control of all events. Why? First, because I find it impossible to believe that I am more merciful or compassionate than God. Second, because the biblical portrait shows that God is pure light and holy love. In him there is no darkness, nothing other than light and love. And third, the words, “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away,” from the lips of Job (1:21), are not good theology. According to Job 1, it was not God but the Devil who took away Job’s children, health, and wealth. God allowed it to happen, but when Job said these words, as the rest of the story shows, he was not yet enlightened about the true nature of the source of his calamity and God’s actual will for his life. God’s will for him was for good and not for harm.

I want to focus on the words Witherington writes about Job for this, although I reject his first two premises as being opposed to Calvinism in the first place. However, since we’ve currently been looking through Job, it should be obvious to current readers of my blog that Witherington’s point about Job is not only wrong, but immediately apparent if one just continues to read the very next verse after the one Witherington quoted.

Witherington tells us that “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away” is “not good theology”, yet the narrator of Job says, “In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong (Job 1:22, ESV).” Job’s statements were not sinful statements, and indeed they were approved by the narrator. Job does not say anything sinful or impure until he begins to lament and curse the day of his birth (which, while not a direct cursing of God to His face is an indirect cursing of God for having created him in the first place).

And far from Witherington’s claim, “it was not God but the Devil who took away Job’s children, health, and wealth”, God Himself states: “He [Job] still holds fast his integrity, although you incited me against him to destroy him without reason” (Job 2:3, ESV). Note that the passage does not say, “You incited me to allow you to destroy him without reason.” No, God doesn’t speak here of permitting Satan at all. Instead, God speaks as if He Himself were the actor.

Now, I can understand that Christians would like to insulate God from any charges of evil, but if God Himself has no problem ascribing what was done to Job to Himself, then why should any Christian have any problem ascribing those things to Him? We are not going beyond Scripture when we affirm what Scripture itself says. The fact of the matter is that the verse does not allow us to view this in terms of “allowing” evil at all, and it is a trite and tired defense to try to deflect what happened to Job into the realm of permission anyway. The Bible itself does not seek that defense. Instead of telling Job, “I didn’t do this to you, I just allowed Satan to do it to you” (which, I must point out, is little comfort to the one who is going through troubles, for if it is unloving for God to actively do such actions, it is equally unloving for God to sit back and allow it to happen when it could not happen apart from His permission in the first place), God responds: “Where were you when I created the world?” (Job 38:4, paraphrased).

It doesn’t matter that God’s response is too “harsh” or too “politically incorrect” or too “Calvinistic.” The fact is, that is God’s response. And as I’ve been arguing with my Chronological Commentary, this is the first way in which God wanted Himself to be known to mankind. This is His first revelation to us, and the first thing He wanted us to know of His character. It seems to me, therefore, that it’s highly significant and pretty important for us to get sovereignty right—even sovereignty over evil actions—before we begin to speak of what is or is not loving in the sight of God.

Arminianism, Calvinism, Theology , , , , , , ,

Job 4-5

Due to copyright restrictions, we are linking the text rather than quoting it directly. Job 4-5 ESV.

As we recall from earlier in Job, three of his friends have come and sat with him while he suffered. Job then issued his lament, cursing the day of his birth. Now, one of his friends begins to speak. It is important to remember, as we go through the “blank slate” method, that we need to treat this passage right now as if we do not know what the ending of the book of Job is. Remember, we are looking at how God first displayed Himself to man, in the order that He did so.

Question 1: What are the propositions of the passage?

1) Eliphaz answers Job’s lament.
2) He asks if Job will be impatient with Eliphaz for his response.
3) He rhetorically points out that he (Eliphaz) cannot refrain from speaking.
4) Eliphaz points out that Job has taught many people.
5) Eliphaz’s description paints Job as a man who has helped others with good words when they have had trials.
6) Now, however, Eliphaz points out that when the troubles happen to Job, Job is impatient.
7) Eliphaz rhetorically asks if the fear of God is Job’s confidence, in a way that assumes the answer is yes.
8) Eliphaz points out Job’s integrity as Job’s hope.
9) Eliphaz asks if an innocent person ever perished or was destroyed, in a way that assumes a negative answers.
10) Eliphaz points out that he has seen those who “plow iniquity” or “sow trouble” are those who “reap the same.”
11) Eliphaz maintains that God destroys the wicked.
12) Eliphaz states that he has received a vision.
13) This vision comes as “a form”.
14) This form asks: “Can mortal man be in the right before God?” implying a negative answer.
15) This form asks: “Can a man be pure before his Maker?” again implying a negative answer.
16) This form states that God does not trust even His servants.
17) This form says that God charges His angels with error.
18) As a result, this form concludes that man is that much more charged with error, since man’s foundation “is in the dust” and man is “crushed like the moth.”
19) Eliphaz asks Job to call out to those holy ones to see who will answer (with the implied “no one will answer”)
20) Eliphaz gives a couple of proverbs.
21) These proverbs are summed up by his statement that “affliction does not come from the dust, nor does trouble sprout from the ground, but man is born to trouble”.
22) Eliphaz points out that he would himself seek after God.
23) Eliphaz claims to commit his cause to God.
24) Eliphaz says God “does great things” that are “unsearchable, marvelous” and “without number.”
25) Eliphaz maintains that rain is one of these things God does.
26) Eliphaz says God lifts up on high those who are lowly.
27) Eliphaz says God lifts mourners to safety.
28) Eliphaz says God frustrates the evil schemes of man.
29) Eliphaz says God saves the needy from violence at the hands of the mighty.
30) The conclusion is that “the poor have hope, and injustice shuts her mouth.”
31) Eliphaz says those who are reproved by God are blessed.
32) Eliphaz councils not to despise the discipline of the Alimighty.
33) Eliphaz says God wounds, but also heals.
34) Eliphaz maintains God will deliver from all troubles.
35) This includes from famine and war.
36) Eliphaz claims Job will be at peace with everything, even beasts of the field.
37) Eliphaz says Job’s offspring will be many.
38) Eliphaz says Job will go to his grave as an old man.
39) Eliphaz declares he has searched out this message, and he proclaims it is true.
40) Eliphaz asks Job to hear what was spoken, and know it for his own good.

Question 2: What does this passage teach about God?

Since this passage deals with the words of Eliphaz, it may be more appropriate to ask “What does this passage teach us Eliphaz believes about God?” Unlike when we read that Job has not sinned by his lips, we do not yet know how much of Eliphaz’s testimony is true. That he believes it is obvious in the concluding verses of chapter 5, but many sincere people have believed errors.

Nevertheless, we can see that Eliphaz believes many things that modern Christians likewise believe about God. Eliphaz argues that God destroys the wicked, that He will frustrate evil schemes of man, that He protects the needy and lifts up the weak. Eliphaz believes that God does great and mighty works. Eliphaz believes that God heals the wounded, but unlike many today, Eliphaz also believes that God will sometimes inflict pain before He heals.

Eliphaz also adds some things from the “form” the he had seen. While this form remains unidentified, it is clear from the context of the passage that Eliphaz believes he has seen God and that it is God who is testifying. One particular point of contention is just where the quotation marks should end. That is, Job 4:17 seems to be certainly a quote from the “form”, which if it really was God means that the statement is true. However, it appears that verses 18-21 may actually be Eliphaz’s interpretation of verse 17. If those statements are from God, then we can conclude that God does not trust his angels, and even less so in man. If His angels are the same as “the sons of God” mentioned twice before in Job, then it is little wonder why God would not trust them. But, of course, all of this could be Eliphaz’s mere opinion, and there’s no guarantee that the “form” he saw was God.

Question 3: What does this passage teach about man?

Whether he is right or wrong about God above, we do know that Eliphaz errs on a few points here. For one thing, while he maintains that he has never seen a righteous person destroyed, we have been told that Job is precisely such a righteous person who has been destroyed. Now, if by this Eliphaz simply mean that there are no truly righteous people, then he would be accurate to say that no righteous person has ever been destroyed for it is our experience that everyone has moral failure at some point or another. However, the way the phrase is used implies that Eliphaz truly believes that this type of destruction only comes to people who are actively immoral or unrighteous, not someone who is “blameless” and “upright” as the text says of Job. So we know from the book of Job already that Eliphaz’s view is not accurate of Job’s position.

We may also wonder about Eliphaz’s definition of impatience, given that Job waited for an entire week of misery before he issued his lament. However, it is still useful to take note of what Eliphaz said here. He is pointing to something that is common to mankind: hypocrisy. Job was able to teach others during their afflictions, yet when he was afflicted he did resort to cursing his birth. This first rebuke from Eliphaz actually does seem to be a little warranted, even if he is quick to condemn Job’s impatience. (It is also a bit of irony to see Eliphaz first condemn Job for impatience, and then immediately ask “Yet who can keep from speaking?”, indicating that he does not have patience to wait himself!)

Eliphaz’s last point likewise seems to be wise. He recommends that Job seek God and commit his cause to God. Now, this seems to be what Job actually was doing up to the point when he issued his lament. That is, Job began by saying “The Lord gives and takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord” and should return to that attitude. Thus, Eliphaz gives some sage advice on maintaining a proper focus in the midst of personal strife.

However, some of Eliphaz’s comments at the end seem a bit cruel given what Job has gone through. For instance, Eliphaz claims Job will have many offspring—but this has been said just after Job lost all his children. Additionally, he claims that Job will have a long life—but Job has just wished for death. Under these circumstances, those two statements do not seem to be very intelligent statements to make. Eliphaz’s final judgment that Job should just trust him and accept what he has said also speaks of a bit of arrogance, especially since we know Eliphaz has been wrong about much of Job’s state. Both of these things teach us that we should be more careful with our own words, and we should also take care even on issues that “we have searched out” and believe “it is true” and “for your good.”

Theology , ,

Interesting Weather

As a quick aside, it’s now May…but I think it’s colder than it was at any point during April. Welcome to Colorado weather!

Personal

Hmmm…

Well, I was planning on writing a bit more today, but between church, an after-church meeting, and then the fact that the internet keeps going down here at home, I think I’ll table it until tomorrow.

Personal

Still Recovering

But at least I have a Skarlet with me to help :-)

Personal

Ugh

I’ve been under the weather today. There’s just something about a springtime cold that seems even worse than a winter cold.

Personal

Job 3

Due to copyright restrictions, we are linking to the passage instead of quoting it directly. Job 3:1-26, ESV

Here we examine the entirety of Job’s lament in Job 3. While the above passage is somewhat lengthy, there are actually very few propositions presented here. A proposition has to be a declarative sentence—indeed, one that is either true or false. As such, when Job says, “Let the day perish on which I was born…” that is not a proposition. However, it would be a proposition to say, “Job said, ‘Let the day perish on which I was born…’” since that is a declarative statement that is either true or false.

Nevertheless, just as we can gain some propositions from rhetorical questions (by teasing out the implied propositions), we can gather some of those types of propositions here too.

Question 1: What are the propositions of the passage?

1) Job curses the day of his birth.
2) As part of his cursing, Job uses metaphorical language to compare that day to darkness and obscurity.
3) Job expresses a longing that he had died at birth.
4) His reasoning is that if he had died at birth, he would have been at rest.
5) Job compares death to sleep.
6) Job declares that kings, counselors, and princes are in that rest.
7) Job expresses a longing that he had been stillborn.
8) He states that in death, the wicked cease from trouble.
9) He states that in death, the weary are at rest.
10) He states that even the prisoners and slaves are at ease, free from work.
11) Job asks why light is given to the one in misery.
12) He asks why life comes to the “bitter in soul” despite the fact that they long for death.
13) He asks why life remains for those who long for death like a hidden treasure.
14) He asks why light is given to those whom God “has hedged in”.
15) He says these questions arise from the fact that his groanings are poured out like water.
16) Job declares, “The thing that I fear comes upon me, and what I dread befalls me.”
17) Job declares that he is not at ease, that he is not quiet, and that he has no rest—only trouble.

Question 2: What does this passage teach about God?

As I discussed previously, this passage does not give much specific information about God. The only direct reference to God comes when Job asks, “Why is light given to a man whose way is hidden, whom God has hedged in?” This shows us that yet again, Job is indicating that God is the one who is acting against him. And as a result, we are still left with our same inference from before: Job’s state is one that God Himself is ultimately responsible for.

Again, it should be remembered that this is most likely the first book of Scripture penned, which means that for some reason this is the image of God that God Himself first wanted men to have in mind. It most certainly is an uncomfortable image that does not seem very consistent with a lot of preaching that is currently given, yet if all the Scriptures are true, then our beliefs must begin with an understanding of God being in charge over events that drive us to our knees and make us long for death.

Question 3: What does this passage teach about man?

It is very easy to empathize with Job’s lament. Nearly all of us have felt similar to him, and virtually all of us have experienced much less torment than Job went through before we were at that point. Job has been brought down very low, and the fact that he would curse the day of his birth and long for death, indeed wishing he had never been born in the first place, resonates with us.

Of great note, I find Job’s longing for peace and rest resounds within my own heart. He views death as an equalizer. The slave and prisoner are set free, no one has a taskmaster. Likewise, Job references kings and princes—each are brought to the same place in the grave.

Naturally, some might take from this that Job believes that all people end up in the same place in the afterlife, as if this is teaching a form of universalism. However, it doesn’t appear that Job is referencing the afterlife at all. If anything, Job here appears to have no concept of an afterlife in the first place. His view instead seems to be that death is nihilism, which is why there is no trouble for either king or slave. While that may cause modern Christians to take pause, given that we believe in an afterlife, two things should be noted here. 1) God’s revelation is just beginning here, and Job would not necessarily have a full understanding of what happens after death. 2) These words are Job’s opinion recorded accurately in Scripture, and not necessarily accurate to what God proclaims is true. However, since we are in “blank slate” mode for this commentary, and because Job has been declared righteous many times before this point and thus far he has not been said to have sinned anywhere, in “blank slate” mode his opinions here would be the kind we would provisionally accept.

Theology , ,