Job

"Job is depicted as a pious and prosperous man. At the prompting of Satan, the Lord agrees to try Job." So commences the survey of the book of Job in the RSV Study Bible's introduction to it.

I have not come across a Bible commentary that disagrees. They are unanimous in stating that God accepted Satan's challenge that Job's faith should be severely tested and handed him over to him for that purpose. The only reservation was that Job's life should be spared, otherwise God gave Satan carte blanche to afflict Job in any way he chose. The misfortunes of Job included not only loss of property and health but also the indiscriminate slaughter of most of his children and employees. It appears to be accepted without question that God was willing for these unfortunate people, the exact nature of whose sins is nowhere indicated in the book, to perish in order to prove a point to Satan. No one asks why it was that God should have thought it desirable to provide his enemy with such a lesson. Christians have been taught that everything came out favourably for Job in the end. God restored to him his property, gave him other children and granted additional blessings. One wonders what kind of Christian it is who would believe that Job, for all the new children he was subsequently blessed with, would have ceased to mourn those he had lost and would not have carried the sorrow of that loss with him to his grave, as if the blessings of children were to be reckoned only numerically.

It cannot be denied that Job himself saw his afflictions as sent by God:

For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me. (Job 6:4).

Readers of the Bible, however, have better information than was available to Job. We have the first chapter of the book, in which we can plainly see that it was Satan, not God, who was responsible for his sufferings. "Nevertheless," says the standard Commentary on Job, "those sufferings were by the permissive will of God. We may be comforted in the knowledge that, if we belong to God, our sufferings are allowed by him for our good." By this reasoning Christian parents of the primary schoolchildren massacred in Dunblane may draw comfort from knowing that it was in perfect accordance with the will of him who said "Thou shalt not kill" that an emissary of Satan should have stalked their community with his finger on the trigger of a gun. Admittedly, many can truthfully testify that an experience of suffering has brought them closer to God, but is that the central message of the book of Job?

Since these opinions on the book of Job appear to be universal among believers, and since I consider them wholly mistaken, my purpose in this paper is to offer what I believe is a very necessary defence of the character of our God and to show that he who cannot countenance sin could not and did not collude with Satan in these crimes against his servant.

If we do not correctly interpret the first chapter of the book of Job we will misconstrue all that follows. Job is introduced to us as "perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil" (v. 1). Does this mean that Job was without sin? Are we to understand that, in the course of human history, two sinless men have walked this earth, one being the Lord Jesus Christ and the other Job? Since the Bible tells us that, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, we may not in this context so interpret the word perfect. Other Scripture comes to our aid:

Ye have heard that it hath been said; Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you ... Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Mat 5, 43–44, 48.)

Believers must emulate the Father in being consistently loving. Perfect, in this context, means consistent. A perfect day is one which has supplied consistent gratification. Job was not sinless, but consistently upright. How are we to understand the word upright?

And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day: and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and drink with them. And it was so, when the days of their feasting had gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually. (Job 1:4–5.)

There is no reason to suppose that Job's sons and daughters were engaged in any immoderate revelry. Rather do we see a closely knit family whose members, now grown up and living apart, are providing each other with generous hospitality and enjoying each other's society. One wonders why it is that Job is absent from these gatherings. Has he received no invitation? Is there something of the ascetic about the man of which his children are only too well aware? What are his relations with his sons and daughters? There is a coldness about Job which comes out strongly in his later conversations with his visitors. As he broods alone at home, the imagination of this paragon of virtue is at work. Perhaps - perhaps - his sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts. There is no evidence of this, or search for any by Job, but he leaves nothing to chance. Off he goes to offer the requisite atoning sacrifices by self-appointed proxy, no doubt followed by the angry gaze of his wife who has many times been affronted by such unwarranted slights on the characters of their children, for the Scripture says that Job made a habit of doing this. When Job is overwhelmed by disaster, does not her "Curse God, and die!" suggest a history of barely tolerable domestic tension?

Where is Job's offering on his own behalf? He sees no necessity for any. He knows that he is upright and eschews evil. It is his solemn duty as a man of virtue to be vigilant of the lapses of others and personally to see to it that due atonement is made to the God he imagines to be as stern and unbending as himself. Such is Job's uprightness.

And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth. (Job 29:17.)

The more I consider Job's mental attitude and behaviour the more aversion I feel. He reminds me of the Pharisee in the temple, of whom the Lord Jesus spoke, who gave thanks to God that he was not as other men. I see that Pharisee as deluded, not hypocritical. Like Job, he was meticulous in the performance of what he saw as his religious and social duties. He did not attribute his supposed superiority to himself but gave God sincere thanks for it. If I were to pray at the end of each day, "Be merciful, O God, to my wife, my children and my business partner, all of whom are, unlike me, inclined to forget you and may indeed have in some way offended you this very day", I have not the slightest doubt that God would eventually take measures to sort me out. God did precisely this with Job and in a way which at first may seem surprising. He called Satan's attention to his case.

Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God; and escheweth evil? (Job 1:8.)

Satan replies:

Doth Job fear God for naught? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? Thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land (Job 1:9b-l0.)

Countless Christians have agreed here with the father of lies. Job's prosperity, he says, can only be a mark of God's special favour and protection. How far he is from understanding the abundance of the grace of God. While it is true that all real blessings of this life flow from God, it is also true that the rain falls upon the unjust as well as the just. Material prosperity is not necessarily a sign of God's special favour. The rich, indeed, have special problems, comparable with those of a camel negotiating the narrow gate known as the Eye of a Needle, in gaining entry into the kingdom of God and have opportunity to do so only because with God all things are possible. Only for the moment God leaves this assertion unanswered. Satan continues:

But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he wilt curse thee to thy face. (Job 1:11.)

What was God's reply? This is where we must be very careful, because our understanding of that reply either clarifies or distorts for us the message of the book of Job. The New International Version renders it thus:

The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands."

The Hebrew for what God said (hineh) has been altered in translation to "Very well, then", indicating, in accordance with the bias of the translators, God's consent. The Good News Bible errs equally, and with its usual crudity of style, with its rendering of "All right". That precious translation of the Bible which, although frequently not preferred today by those who scarcely have the taste or discernment to appreciate its qualities, God has blessed and prospered above any other English version, namely the Authorised Version, faithfully reads thus:

And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold; all that he hath is in thy power. (Job 1:12a.)

The Revised Standard Version has "Behold". The Amplified Bible has "Behold". God said "Behold".

To the careless reader it may not make any difference how the word is translated. The essential meaning, he would say, is the same in all versions—God handed over Job to Satan. The essential meaning is not the same. We should read it this way:

Behold, all that he hath is in THY power.

That is not consent, but contradiction. When one says "Behold" or "Look" one is pointing out something that the person addressed has not seen. God denies Satan's allegations. He has not dealt with Job with favouritism. Job's property is, in fact, in Satan's hands. That is where Job has unwittingly put both himself and his possessions. God does not describe Job as his child but as his servant. Job is not a child of God. He has not yet come to repentance. At the end of the book he will do so but at the present time he is unable to see that he can be loved and adopted only by a God who loves and adopts sinners. Job's problem is his self-righteousness. There is no more formidable obstacle to salvation.

My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live. (Job 27:6.)

So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. (Job 32:1.)

That is not to imply that Job's critics were right in their opinions, but Job's self-righteousness would not allow him to accept any criticism. He had lived by the rules. No one could demonstrate otherwise. The only sin that a spiritually proud man cannot detect is his own spiritual pride.

For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and although after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. (Job 19:25–26.)

While Job refers to God as his redeemer, it is not redemption from his sin that he has in view but redemption from death. This is no penitent sinner's confession of the gospel. Job knows that God will one day raise the righteous dead to eternal union with himself and he thinks he qualifies.

The question the book of Job addresses is: how are the upright to be convinced that they need the mercy of God? What is it that robs every man of vindication before God? The apostle Paul supplies the answer:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse. (Rom 1:18–20.)

To hold the truth in unrighteousness means to be capable of grasping the truth in spite of one's fallen nature. The attributes of God are sufficiently evident in his creation to leave men without excuse for failing to be aware of the difference between their own estate and his. When God speaks to Job that is the point to which he draws his attention:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? (Job 38:4a.)

The wise among us by human standards may well ask themselves the same question. God goes on to describe his creation. It is not to exalt himself that he does so but to show Job his true position in that creation. That is what humbles Job's pride and causes him to say:

Therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not ... Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:3b,5.)

We must not too hurriedly pass over the Lord's words to Job's visitors:

The Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath. (Job 42:7b.)

We may not interpret these words of the Lord as vindicating all that Job has said, for God's first words to Job were:

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? (Job 38:2.)

The two friends of Eliphaz to whom the Lord refers are Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite. The three men had insisted that Job's sufferings must have been sent by God as a punishment for sin. Job had been right in denying this although not in the way he thought. There had also been a fourth visitor, a young man named Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite. We should be careful to notice that the Lord had nothing to say in criticism of this young man's words. In deference to his elders Elihu had long held his peace, but:

... against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. (Job 32:2b.)

Job had said of God:

Oh that I knew where I might find him! that I might come even unto his seat! I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments. (Job 23:3–4.)

Job was confident of the strength of his case, but said he had no opportunity to plead it because God unfairly held himself aloof. Elihu said:

Shall even he that hath right govern? and wilt thou condemn him that is most just? (Job 34:17.)

Elihu did not claim to understand the causes of Job's suffering. He was, in fact, also angry with the other three visitors for their judgmental speeches. Job might very well be the upright man he claimed to be, but that gave him no moral right to call God to account. Come what may, God is just and must be trusted to be so.

If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand? (Job 35:7.)

Elihu did not say that God is indifferent to the righteousness or wickedness of men. His point was that it is folly to believe that God, himself the source of all righteousness, ought to be impressed by any man's moral rectitude.

Are we inclined at times to question the justice of God? Whence, then, comes our very sense of justice? Do our circumstances cause us at times to doubt the love of God? Whence, then, comes our very idea of love? If fallen man is preoccupied with questions of love and justice that is only because he has been made in the image of his Creator. That is why God, in answering Job, points to himself as Creator of all and source of that very sense of justice which Job feels to have been so conspicuously outraged.

God did not trouble to relate to Job what had passed between himself and Satan. Neither did he trouble to comment on Job's domestic and other relationships. God went to the heart of the matter.

Barry Stronge