SUMMARY:
In chs. 9–10, Job responds to Bildad’s rather simplistic and callous theology.
Understandably, he doesn’t respond to it well.
In fact, in emotional terms, Job seems to be at his worst in chs. 9–10.
His accusations against God are at their most hostile and irreverent,
In chs. 9–10, Job responds to Bildad’s rather simplistic and callous theology.
Understandably, he doesn’t respond to it well.
In fact, in emotional terms, Job seems to be at his worst in chs. 9–10.
His accusations against God are at their most hostile and irreverent,
which is largely due to Bildad’s uncharitable claims. (A speech which slanders a man’s recently deceased children is unlikely to do him much good: 8.4.)
Job’s speech in chs. 9–10 consists of two halves.
In ch. 9, Job complains about how hopeless a task it is to try to pin God down.
And, in ch. 10, Job switches to the second person and complains directly to God about how unfairly he has been treated.
In ch. 9, Job complains about how hopeless a task it is to try to pin God down.
And, in ch. 10, Job switches to the second person and complains directly to God about how unfairly he has been treated.
The nerve of ch. 9 is reflected in Job’s very first statement.
‘I know the same things as you’, Job says in response to Bildad’s claims about Job’s (lack of) righteousness.
Yet how can a man possibly be ‘in the right’ with *God* (9.2)?
‘I know the same things as you’, Job says in response to Bildad’s claims about Job’s (lack of) righteousness.
Yet how can a man possibly be ‘in the right’ with *God* (9.2)?
In other words:
Suppose your black and white view of the world is right, Bildad.
Suppose God never perverts justice (8.3a).
And suppose God never refuses the requests of the blameless (8.20a).
And suppose God never sustains the lives of the wicked (8.20b).
Suppose your black and white view of the world is right, Bildad.
Suppose God never perverts justice (8.3a).
And suppose God never refuses the requests of the blameless (8.20a).
And suppose God never sustains the lives of the wicked (8.20b).
How, then, can *any* of us hope to last for very long on earth?
You say God would listen to me if I was ‘in the right’ (8.3-6).
But how can *anyone* truly be ‘in the right’ (צדק) with God?
You say God would listen to me if I was ‘in the right’ (8.3-6).
But how can *anyone* truly be ‘in the right’ (צדק) with God?
In and of themselves, these claims of Job’s do not sound problematic.
But, as we’ve noted (in our introduction), the book of Job is set in patriarchal times.
And Job does not, therefore, have much to work with as far as divine revelation is concerned.
But, as we’ve noted (in our introduction), the book of Job is set in patriarchal times.
And Job does not, therefore, have much to work with as far as divine revelation is concerned.
His thoughts are not constrained by an authoritative word or covenant.
They are simply gleaned from what Job has observed in the world around him (combined with a certain amount of ‘natural theology’).
The same point is reflected in Job’s choice of divine names.
They are simply gleaned from what Job has observed in the world around him (combined with a certain amount of ‘natural theology’).
The same point is reflected in Job’s choice of divine names.
In the book’s epilogue and prologue, where God’s actions are explicitly revealed to us, our narrator refers to God as YHWH.
Job, however, refers to God as YHWH only once (12.9).
Job, however, refers to God as YHWH only once (12.9).
He instead opts for more generic titles, namely ‘El’ (and its derivatives) and ‘Shaddai’ (the Almighty).
God has become a foreign entity to Job, characterised not by covenant loyalty, but by ‘might’.
And, as a result, Job’s thoughts roam far and wide.
God has become a foreign entity to Job, characterised not by covenant loyalty, but by ‘might’.
And, as a result, Job’s thoughts roam far and wide.
First of all, Job mentions God’s utter invincibility/infallibility, which is not the best place for him to start.
‘If someone entered into a debate with God’, Job says, ‘he could not answer one out of his every thousand questions!’ (9.3).
‘If someone entered into a debate with God’, Job says, ‘he could not answer one out of his every thousand questions!’ (9.3).
Job will soon discover how right he is: God will ask him (by my count) sixty-one consecutive questions, and Job will not be able to answer a single one of them.
For the relevant question-count, see below:
academia.edu/41661888/
For the relevant question-count, see below:
academia.edu/41661888/
For Job, however, God’s invincibility is not a reason to rejoice; it is a cause for concern.
It gives God leave to do whatever he wants, without any constraints or limitations (9.4),
which God frequently takes advantage of.
It gives God leave to do whatever he wants, without any constraints or limitations (9.4),
which God frequently takes advantage of.
God removes mountains (9.5),
shakes the foundations of the earth (9.6),
and darkens the sun and stars (9.7).
shakes the foundations of the earth (9.6),
and darkens the sun and stars (9.7).
In other words, God wreaks havoc on the earth.
Job’s claims in 9.5–7 also, however, have a more personal point to make.
At first blush, 9.5–7 might seem to refer to freak events in the natural world (such as earthquakes, eclipses, etc.).
At first blush, 9.5–7 might seem to refer to freak events in the natural world (such as earthquakes, eclipses, etc.).
But it is also intended—or perhaps even *primarily* intended—to depict freak events in the affairs of man.
🔹 The ‘mountains’ which Job mentions in 9.5 are said to be able to ‘know’ (or not know) what God has done to them.
🔹 The ‘mountains’ which Job mentions in 9.5 are said to be able to ‘know’ (or not know) what God has done to them.
🔹 9.6’s ‘pillars and foundations of the earth’ seem likely to depict law and order (i.e., moral stability), as they do elsewhere (e.g., Psa. 75.3, 104.5),
🔹 And the eclipse of stars seems to depict the withdrawal of God’s moral light from a land, the result of which is injustice (Psa. 82.5, Prov. 2.13, Isa. 5.20, 59.9, etc.), as Job describes in 9.24.
Job does not merely, therefore, have in mind freak events in the natural world in 9.5–7.
He has in mind an *ethical/social* collapse, a *moral* earthquake, and an eclipse of *justice*.
More specifically, Job has in mind his own disasters.
He has in mind an *ethical/social* collapse, a *moral* earthquake, and an eclipse of *justice*.
More specifically, Job has in mind his own disasters.
Never mind the natural world as a whole: Job’s *own* world has recently been turned upside down.
The ground has shifted beneath his feet,
the lights have gone out over his head,
and his life has been thrown into disarray (cp. 30.1–31 w. 29.2–25).
The ground has shifted beneath his feet,
the lights have gone out over his head,
and his life has been thrown into disarray (cp. 30.1–31 w. 29.2–25).
As such, Job’s speech directly rebuts Bildad’s.
Bildad’s world is black and white, while Job’s is awash with grey.
Bildad’s world is black and white, while Job’s is awash with grey.
In 9.10, Job moves on to talk about God’s inscrutability.
God is a God who does unfathomable wonders, Job says (9.10).
And who would disagree? Indeed, Eliphaz makes exactly the same point in 5.9.
God is a God who does unfathomable wonders, Job says (9.10).
And who would disagree? Indeed, Eliphaz makes exactly the same point in 5.9.
But, while Eliphaz’s statement leads him to go on to consider how justly God governs his creation, Job’s thoughts head in a different direction.
Job doesn’t only find God’s *wonders* unfathomable;
he finds God’s entire *character* ‘unfathomable’ (אין חקר)—a phrase which Job associates not with ‘unfathomable greatness’, but with ‘inscrutability’ (cp. the sense of חקר in 5.27, 8.8, 11.7, 13.9, etc.).
he finds God’s entire *character* ‘unfathomable’ (אין חקר)—a phrase which Job associates not with ‘unfathomable greatness’, but with ‘inscrutability’ (cp. the sense of חקר in 5.27, 8.8, 11.7, 13.9, etc.).
God can approach Job, and Job will not realise he has come (9.11a; for לעבור על = ‘to approach’, cf. 13.13, Isa. 45.14, etc.).
And God can move on from Job, and Job will not realise God has left him (9.11b).
And God can move on from Job, and Job will not realise God has left him (9.11b).
In other words, God is not only invincible (9.3–4), but invisible.
He is mysterious, elusive, untraceable. And deliberately so.
God cannot be questioned or resisted (9.12 w. 32).
And, once inflamed, his anger is unstoppable (9.13).
He is mysterious, elusive, untraceable. And deliberately so.
God cannot be questioned or resisted (9.12 w. 32).
And, once inflamed, his anger is unstoppable (9.13).
God’s transcendence is, therefore, a frustration to Job,
since God is not only beyond man’s ken, but beyond man’s notion of *justice* (9.14–15).
since God is not only beyond man’s ken, but beyond man’s notion of *justice* (9.14–15).
Job cannot even make contact with God, much less force him to appear in court (9.16).
And, even if he could, God’s presence would overwhelm him (9.17–18).
Job is therefore frustrated by God’s transcendence.
And, as the chapter continues, his view of God does not improve.
And, even if he could, God’s presence would overwhelm him (9.17–18).
Job is therefore frustrated by God’s transcendence.
And, as the chapter continues, his view of God does not improve.
But, before we look at 9.19ff., it will be helpful for us to compare Bildad and Job’s respective views of God.
Bildad and Job both have a mistaken view of God, though for very different reasons.
Bildad’s theology stems from a mistaken presupposition.
Bildad and Job both have a mistaken view of God, though for very different reasons.
Bildad’s theology stems from a mistaken presupposition.
In Bildad’s view, God is entirely predictable: he does not reject the requests of the blameless, nor does he sustain the lives of the wicked (8.20).
Rather, Bildad’s God governs the world by algorithm:
Rather, Bildad’s God governs the world by algorithm:
By contrast, Job’s theology stems from his experiences.
Job knows God is far from predictable.
Indeed, Job has seen God turn his world upside down overnight. Job’s God therefore governs the world not by algorithm, but by impulse. He is wild, dangerous, and erratic.
Job knows God is far from predictable.
Indeed, Job has seen God turn his world upside down overnight. Job’s God therefore governs the world not by algorithm, but by impulse. He is wild, dangerous, and erratic.
Suffice it to say, both of these views of God are mistaken.
But, in 9.4, our author gives us an insight into the cause of Job’s errors.
But, in 9.4, our author gives us an insight into the cause of Job’s errors.
At the outset of ch. 9, Job describes God as ‘wise in heart and mighty in power (אמיץ כח)’. Yet, in what follows, Job expands solely on the latter of these attributes, i.e., God’s might.
Job talks expansively about God’s ability to overturn mountains, shake the foundations of the earth, and seal up the stars. Yet he does not say a word about God’s *wisdom*. (God’s power trumps all other divine attributes.)
And, as we’ll now see, Job continues in the same vein in 9.19ff.
‘If it is a contest of strength’, Job says, ‘then God is the (most) mighty one!’
‘If it is a matter of justice, who can summon him?’
In other words, might makes right in heaven’s courtroom.
‘If it is a contest of strength’, Job says, ‘then God is the (most) mighty one!’
‘If it is a matter of justice, who can summon him?’
In other words, might makes right in heaven’s courtroom.
Understandably, such thoughts lead Job to despair.
Even though he is righteous, God will still condemn him (9.20–21), Job says.
So far is God above man’s sense of justice, the blameless and the wicked are alike to him (9.22, 29, 10.15–16).
Even though he is righteous, God will still condemn him (9.20–21), Job says.
So far is God above man’s sense of justice, the blameless and the wicked are alike to him (9.22, 29, 10.15–16).
Just as the strong are weak in comparison to God (and the wise foolish: 1 Cor. 1.25), so the righteous are wicked in his eyes (9.22).
Hence, whereas Bildad’s God blesses the righteous and curses the wicked (because his algorithm tells him to do so), Job’s God destroys the righteous and the wicked alike (cp. 9.23 w. 17).
In sum, then, to try to hold God to account is a hopeless task.
In sum, then, to try to hold God to account is a hopeless task.
And, of course, all the while Job’s time on earth gets shorter (9.25–26).
Job therefore considers two possible courses of action (9.27–31).
Job therefore considers two possible courses of action (9.27–31).
First, to forget about the matter and move on.
If Job cannot win his case against God, he may as well drop it.
Or so one might think. But, while others might have been able to adopt such a course of action, Job cannot.
If Job cannot win his case against God, he may as well drop it.
Or so one might think. But, while others might have been able to adopt such a course of action, Job cannot.
Disasters do not befall people by chance.
If God has afflicted Job in life, then things will not turn out well for him in the afterlife (9.28). And if his life is destined to end in destruction, then his labours—like those of the Preacher—will have been ‘in vain’ (הבל) (9.29).
If God has afflicted Job in life, then things will not turn out well for him in the afterlife (9.28). And if his life is destined to end in destruction, then his labours—like those of the Preacher—will have been ‘in vain’ (הבל) (9.29).
The second option is for Job to (somehow) make himself ‘more righteous’—or, in Job’s words, to ‘wash himself with snow’ (9.30–31).
Exactly what Job has in mind here is hard to say.
To wash oneself with snow would seem a rather pointless exercise.
Exactly what Job has in mind here is hard to say.
To wash oneself with snow would seem a rather pointless exercise.
After all, snow does not make a man any cleaner than water.
To wash with snow is, therefore, merely a gesture—an act of great symbolic import yet little real purpose.
Which may well be Job’s point, since to (try to) make oneself ‘more innocent’ is equally pointless.
To wash with snow is, therefore, merely a gesture—an act of great symbolic import yet little real purpose.
Which may well be Job’s point, since to (try to) make oneself ‘more innocent’ is equally pointless.
To confess non-existent sins is merely a gesture; it does not make a man any cleaner.
And, in any case, Job at his very ‘cleanest’ would still not satisfy *God’s* standards of cleanness (9.31).
And, in any case, Job at his very ‘cleanest’ would still not satisfy *God’s* standards of cleanness (9.31).
Job’s situation is therefore hopeless.
What Job needs is a mediator.
God is too mighty for him, too vast, too otherworldly, too transcendent.
What Job needs is a mediator.
God is too mighty for him, too vast, too otherworldly, too transcendent.
Job needs to find someone who is able to guarantee him a fair trial—someone to arbitrate between him and God and hold them accountable to a common standard of justice (9.32–35).
Of course, here in 9.32, Job’s reference to a mediator is merely a lament (and has been dismissed out of hand by Eliphaz: 5.1).
But it nevertheless seems to put the idea in Job’s mind, and it seems to be an idea which Job cannot forget.
But it nevertheless seems to put the idea in Job’s mind, and it seems to be an idea which Job cannot forget.
As time goes on, it becomes a genuine hope (16.18–22) and eventually a settled belief (19.25).
But, at present, the concept of a mediator is a mere pipe dream, and Job’s lament therefore continues.
But, at present, the concept of a mediator is a mere pipe dream, and Job’s lament therefore continues.
Next up in our walk through the book of Job is ch. 10, i.e., the second half of Job’s response to Bildad.
But first, a reflection to close.
But first, a reflection to close.
A FINAL REFLECTION:
While Job 9 is not explicitly quoted in the NT, it shares a number of significant contact-points with the text of Mark 6.45–54.
While Job 9 is not explicitly quoted in the NT, it shares a number of significant contact-points with the text of Mark 6.45–54.
As we’ve noted, the text of Job 9 portrays God in a mysterious and ambiguous light.
God has abandoned Job to life’s stormy seas and is now nowhere to be seen. Hence, in 9.7–11, Job describes God in terms of mystery and elusiveness.
God has abandoned Job to life’s stormy seas and is now nowhere to be seen. Hence, in 9.7–11, Job describes God in terms of mystery and elusiveness.
Job’s is a God who darkens the light of the stars (9.7),
bows the heavens (9.8a),
treads on (or perhaps ‘subdues’) the waves of the sea (9.8b),
does great wonders (9.10),
approaches Job without his awareness (9.11a),
and passes Job by without his awareness (9.11b).
bows the heavens (9.8a),
treads on (or perhaps ‘subdues’) the waves of the sea (9.8b),
does great wonders (9.10),
approaches Job without his awareness (9.11a),
and passes Job by without his awareness (9.11b).
And, significantly, the text of Mark 6.45–54 portrays Jesus in a similar light.
In Mark 6.45, Jesus sends his disciples across the Sea of Galilee alone.
Then, as night falls (and the heavens are bowed), a storm sweeps across the Sea,
which endangers the disciples’ lives.
In Mark 6.45, Jesus sends his disciples across the Sea of Galilee alone.
Then, as night falls (and the heavens are bowed), a storm sweeps across the Sea,
which endangers the disciples’ lives.
Yet, amidst the darkness, the disciples make out a mysterious and fearful figure on the waves of the sea (Jesus), who they are unable to recognise.
As Jesus approaches them, they do not realise it is him.
And it then looks as if Jesus will pass them by.
As Jesus approaches them, they do not realise it is him.
And it then looks as if Jesus will pass them by.
Yet, when the disciples cry out in fear, Jesus identifies himself with the words ‘I am’ (ἐγώ εἰμι) (6.50).
As such, the texts of Job 9 and Mark 6.45–54 have a number of significant contact-points.
And, as one might expect, they can helpfully be read in light of one another.
While Jesus appears to have abandoned his disciples, he has not.
He has gone to a mountain top to pray.
And, as one might expect, they can helpfully be read in light of one another.
While Jesus appears to have abandoned his disciples, he has not.
He has gone to a mountain top to pray.
The text of Mark 6 therefore helps us to interpret God’s absence in the book of Job.
Despite Job’s claims to the contrary, God has not abandoned him. Rather, God has temporarily ‘withdrawn’ himself, which he has done for a specific time and a specific purpose.
Despite Job’s claims to the contrary, God has not abandoned him. Rather, God has temporarily ‘withdrawn’ himself, which he has done for a specific time and a specific purpose.
And, even though Job would rather be left alone, God remains active on his behalf.
At the same time, the text of Job 9 helps to interpret the element of mystery inherent in Mark’s portrayal of Jesus.
At the same time, the text of Job 9 helps to interpret the element of mystery inherent in Mark’s portrayal of Jesus.
While Jesus is a revelation of the Father, he remains an enigmatic and ambiguous figure.
He withdraws to desolate places, teaches in parables,
speaks about the future of his ministry only in very cryptic terms,
and is consistently misunderstood by his disciples.
He withdraws to desolate places, teaches in parables,
speaks about the future of his ministry only in very cryptic terms,
and is consistently misunderstood by his disciples.
His presence and person are greater than the disciples can grasp, since the God he has come to reveal is greater than they can grasp.
Yet, for all the similarities between the texts of Job 9 and Mark 6, we should not overlook an important distinction between Job’s knowledge of God and *our* knowledge of God in the present day.
For Job, God’s vastness is a threat.
Unconstrained by a covenant, Job’s God is wild, unpredictable, and capricious.
Yet, as Christians, God’s vastness is a source of fascination and wonder.
We are related to God by means of a covenant.
Unconstrained by a covenant, Job’s God is wild, unpredictable, and capricious.
Yet, as Christians, God’s vastness is a source of fascination and wonder.
We are related to God by means of a covenant.
And God’s character has been revealed to us in the person of Jesus—a man whose consistency and commitment cannot be doubted,
a man who loved his disciples to the very end,
a man who loved his disciples to the very end,
and a man who, when he was reviled, did not revile in return,
when he suffered, did not threaten in return,
and, when he was crucified, forgave (1 Pet. 2).
when he suffered, did not threaten in return,
and, when he was crucified, forgave (1 Pet. 2).
As a result, we are able to explore the character and deeds of God not in fear of what we might discover, but in excitement.
THE END.
THE END.
