The following extract is taken from Robert Sutherland’s new book “Putting God on Trial: The Biblical Book of Job” (Trafford, Victoria, 2004) It is reproduced with his permission and he retains the copyright. Mr.Sutherland is a Christian Canadian criminal defense lawyer instrumental in changing the Canadian law on aggravated assault and solicitor-client privilege. He is a Senior Fellow at the Mortimer J. Adler Centre for the Study of the Great Ideas. And he is a member of St.Stephen’s Anglican, Thunder Bay. The book has received high praise from Job scholars: David Clines, Norman Habel and Gerald Janzen. Several chapters and order information are online at http://www.bookofjob.org

“Job’s Second Response

In his second and final response, Job appears to have understood God’s strategy of indirection.

“Then Job answered the LORD: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you declare to me.’ I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:1-6 Italics added for emphasis and clarification.)

1. I understand your purpose.

“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.. I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you..” (Job 42:2 Italics added for emphasis.)

Job finds purpose in God’s two speeches. Job has understood the suggestions of purpose and providence in God’s first speech. And Job has understood the suggestion of a final purpose in God’s creation and control of evil in God’s second speech. The Hebrew word for “purpose” here is “mezimma”, meaning “considered plan”. It is often associated with wisdom and prudence but there is a certain shrewdness to it. [1] That shrewdness may evidence a sophisticated or nuanced approach to God’s goodness. At least, the author may be suggesting the same. In any event, it is a purpose that cannot be “thwarted”. The Hebrew world for “thwarted” here is “batsar”, meaning “cut off”. [2] Cut off usually means death. So in Job’s thinking, God’s purpose in life cannot be defeated by even death itself. God’s purpose in life cannot be defeated by the person Death that is Leviathan himself.

God had commanded Job to listen and he has listened attentively to everything that God had just spoken and left unspoken, with the consequence that he now “saw” or “understood” the existence of a possible answer. The “hearing by the ear” refers to the two sets of speeches God has just delivered and not to any prior revelation received secondhand. [3]

Job knows that God has not answered his ethical question: why do the innocent suffer, why do I suffer. But God’s coming to Job, in the midst of his suffering, deepens his understanding. For all God’s blustering, Job finds in it evidence that God cares. Whatever suffering may be, it is not punishment; it is not correction. He has seen the face of God and lived. No formal declaration of innocence is required, though one has issued. God has not entered a defense and Job is vindicated or justified through his Oath of Innocence.

However, evidence that God cares is not sufficient evidence to acquit God on the charges facing him. The mere fact that God is with those who suffer is no justification for God having caused the suffering in the first place. At best, God’s ex-post facto compassion may be relevant to sentence, but not to guilt. The trial of God must continue.

Job temporarily grants God the benefit of the doubt, which in this case is the benefit of time. Whatever that purpose may be, God should have the opportunity to bring it to fruition. God will have all of human history to work out his purpose in his use of evil. At the end of human history, all the evidence will be in and God will be able to present a full and meaningful defense, a defense of justification or necessity. Job will not thwart that purpose by prematurely passing judgment on God and blaming him for evil in the world.

2. I despise premature judgment; I melt to my knees in worship.

“Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:6 Italics added for emphasis.)

A proper interpretation of this passage turns on the meaning of a rare Hebrew word “em’as”. It stands alone in the received Hebrew text. The word “myself” is not there. The meaning of “em’as” depends on the verbal root from which it is derived, either “ma’as” or “masas”. [4] The first root “ma’as” means “to despise” or “to reject”. [5] A majority of translations and scholars, including NRSV, derive “em’as” from the root “ma’as”. In this respect, they follow the 10th century Hebrew Masoretic text. The marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic text makes reference to the fact that the original document read “em’as”. The meaning was unclear. So the scribes transcribed it as “ma’as” to bring out their interpretation. The second root “masas” means “to sink down” or “to melt”. [6] A significant minority of translations and scholars derive “em’as” from the root “masas”. In this respect, they follow a marginal note in the same 10th century Hebrew Masoretic text and the 5th century Greek Septuagint text. The marginal note in the Hebrew Masoretic text indicates that while they have used “ma’as”, a variant reading is “masas”.

This author’s interpretation of The Book of Job is compatible with either translation of the word “em’as” and the book may imply both.

If the word is to be understood as “to despise”, then what Job despises is not himself. Job despises premature judgment, especially a premature pronunciation of the condemnation that is the second summary default judgment of his Oath of Innocence. He grants God all of human history to finish his plan for evil in the world.

If the word is to be understood as “to melt”, then Job “melts” or falls to his knees in worship, maintaining a healthy respect for God and for himself. God has twice asked him to stand up, to “gird himself”. (Job 38:3; 40:7) That is the proper position of a litigant. But this is also the Day of Atonement, the day when the devout worshipper falls to his knees. There are only two days in the Jewish liturgical year when a Jewish believer actually bows the knee before God; this is one. [7] Having given God the benefit of the doubt or the benefit of time, Job “melts” to his knees. He assumes the position he assumed days before when “he fell to the ground and worshipped.” (Job 1:20) “In all this, Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing.” (Job 1:22)

3. I change course. I am comforted in my vindication and delay any condemnation.

“Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:6 Italics added for emphasis.)

A proper interpretation of this passage turns on the meaning of the Hebrew word “naham”. “Naham means either “to change course” or “to comfort or be comforted”. [8]

This author’s interpretation of The Book of Job is compatible with either interpretation of the word.

If the word is to be understood as “changing course”, then Job “changes course” with respect to the enforcement mechanism of his Oath of Innocence. When God appeared to Job and did not enter a defense, Job was automatically vindicated in his two-fold claim that God is the author of undeserved evil in the world and that he had a right to know the reason why. On the terms of the Oath of Innocence, he was morally and legally entitled to “proceed further” to a condemnation of God by way of curse. And without any suggestions of a possible answer to the question of evil in the world, he had intended to condemn God. But such suggestions of moral purpose in evil were forthcoming in God’s second speech. So Job rightly changes his mind and changes the course of his prosecution of God. Job does not and cannot retract or withdraw his Oath of Innocence. That would be to prematurely acquit God. That would be a sin. There is a prima facie case for God to answer that has not been answered. Evil cannot be simply dismissed as something other than it is. God would not allow such partiality in judgement to go unpunished. Job adjourns the Oath of Innocence to the Day of Judgment so that he might hear from Redeemer a third time. The adjournment is implied in the phrase “in dust and ashes”.

If the word is to be understood as “being comforted”, then Job is “comforted” in two ways. First, when God appeared to Job and did not enter a defense, Job was automatically vindicated in his two-fold claim that God is the author of undeserved evil in the world and that he had a right to know the reason why. Second, Job is “comforted” that God has come to him in the midst of his suffering. It is evidence that God cares. It is evidence that persuades Job to adjourn his Oath of Innocence, to wait for God’s final answer. God has not abandoned Job. God has not abandoned mankind. Whatever is the reason for evil in the world, it is not punishment or character development. Still the evidence of God’s presence is not sufficient evidence to acquit God on the charges facing him. The mere fact that God is with those who suffer is not, in and of itself, a justification for God having caused the suffering in the first place. God’s ex-post facto compassion may be relevant to sentence but not to guilt. Job adjourns the Oath of Innocence to the Day of Judgment so that he might hear from his Redeemer a third time. The fact that God cares encourages Job to believe he will ultimately get that answer. The adjournment is implied in the phrase “in dust and ashes”.

“Naham” can be translated “repent” but only in the loosest possible sense and a potentially misleading sense. The New Oxford Annotated Edition of the NRSV adds an important editorial note to its translation of the word “naham” as “repent”:

“Repent, a verb that is often used to indicate a change of mind on the Lord’s part (Exodus 32:14; Jeremiah 18:8, 10). Here it does not mean repentance for sin (see vv. 7-8, where Job is said to have spoken what is right).” [9]

Shub” is the normal Hebrew word for a repentance that involves a confession of wrongdoing or sin. [10]

“Shub” means “turning away from sin and returning to God through repentance.” [11] The author of The Book of Job has carefully chosen his words. He has deliberately chosen “naham” as opposed to “shub”. The author is tempting the inattentive reader to premature judgment. He is tempting the reader to find that Job is confessing sin, either for his so-called excessive words, his Oath of Innocence or both. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Job never confesses sin. He never confesses to having wrongfully used excessive language. He never confesses to having wrongfully instituted his Oath of Innocence. And he never retracts or withdraws his Oath of Innocence. God would later say Job was right in everything he said. (Job 42:7-8) In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to attribute sin or wrongdoing to Job for either his so-called excessive words or his Oath of Innocence. If Job were actually confessing sin of any sort, then Job would be damned on the terms of his Oath of Innocence. The Oath of Innocence once sworn cannot be withdrawn as having been wrongfully instituted. If Job were actually confessing sin of any sort, then Satan would be proven right in his challenge of God. And the consequences would be enormous. God would be proven wrong in his three judgments on Job. (Job 1:8-9; 2:3; 42:7) God should step down from his throne. And all of mankind should be destroyed as a failed project.

4. In dust and ashes, I continue the lawsuit and adjourn the matter to the Final Judgment.

“Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:6 Italics added for emphasis.)

In dust and ashes, I adjourn the Oath of Innocence to the Final Judgment to hear from my Redeemer a third time.

In part, “dust and ashes” are the condition of man in this world. Man is but dust and ashes in a world of suffering. But it is a world Job accepts. He does not now ask for any other world. He does not ask for a restoration of his former condition. The dust heap, the ash heap, on which he now sits, is where he is content to remain. He himself is on the verge of death, soon to become dust and ashes. Job will not condemn God or ask God to change his ways to suit Job’s needs. This is the one of the deepest surrenders imaginable.

But more importantly, the phrase “dust and ashes” implies a continuation of Job’s lawsuit with a certain defiance.

That continuing challenge and defiance is its association with Abraham’s challenge of God. When Abraham challenged the Lord God of the universe, the “judge of all the earth”, to “judge rightly” concerned Sodom and Gomorrah and to slay not the “righteous with the guilty” (Genesis 18:22-33), he described himself as “dust and ashes”.

“Then the LORD said, ‘How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.’ So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the LORD. Then Abraham came near and said, ‘Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?’ And the LORD said, ‘If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.’ Abraham answered, ‘Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?’ And he said, ‘I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.’ Again he spoke to him, ‘Suppose forty are found there.’ He answered, ‘For the sake of forty I will not do it.’ Then he said, ‘Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.’ He answered, ‘I will not do it, if I find thirty there.’ He said, ‘Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.’ He answered, ‘For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.’ Then he said, ‘Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.’ He answered, ‘For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.’ And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.” (Genesis 18:20-33 Italics added for emphasis)

Seven times, this man of “dust and ashes” continues his challenge of God: (1) “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked.” (Genesis 18:23); (2) “Far be it from you.Far be it from you.” (Genesis 18:25); (3)”Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? (Genesis 18:28); (4) “Suppose forty are found there?” (Genesis 18:29); (5)

“Suppose thirty are found there?” (Genesis 18:30); (6) “Suppose twenty are found there?” (Genesis 18:31); (7) “Suppose ten are found there?” (Genesis 18:32) Like Job, Abraham was demanding that God give answers for his moral activity in the world. Thus, the phrase “dust and ashes” describes the man who has the moral courage to challenge God and to continue his challenge of God, even in the face of God’s possible anger. (Genesis 18:30,32)

The phrase “dust and ashes” implies Job is continuing his challenge of God. Its use here should not be read as an indication of capitulation on Job’s part. Whenever Old Testament writers wish to indicate a hopeless resignation, they always use either the word “dust” or “ashes”, but never the two words together. The phrase “dust and ashes” is associated with a fiery challenge of God and the discerning reader should see that Job has not lost his fire in the belly. Abraham’s challenge of God may not have been expressed in terms of a formal lawsuit, but it has all the elements of a covenantal dispute. The phrase “dust and ashes” is strong literary evidence that Job is not withdrawing the lawsuit. He is not backing down. He is merely changing course as to its prosecution. Combining piety with protest, Job now continues to challenge God with his patience and his silence.

The phrase “dust and ashes” only occurs in one other place in the entire Bible. “He has cast me into the mire and I have become like dust and ashes.” (Job 30:19) At first glance, it might appear that Job 30:19 is the proximate literary context within which to interpret Job 42:6. However, I do not believe this is the case. Things make sense in terms of context. The context is not merely physical proximity but thematic relevance. Abraham’s challenge of God and Job’s second speech are forensic or court-room speech involving dialogue with God. Hence, Job 42:6 should be read in light of Genesis 18:27. The existence of the phrase “dust and ashes” in Job 30:19 may complicate my argument; but I do not believe it subverts it. Arguably, Job 30:19 is a restatement of an earlier comment by Job: “If I wash myself with soap and clean my hands with lye, yet you will plunge me into filth, and my own clothes will abhor me.” (Job 9:30-31) That earlier statement occurs in the first prolonged ‘courtroom’ scene: Job’s speech concerning a mediator. Hence, Job 30:19 is not without a forensic dimension and may even provide collateral support to my interpretation. All three uses of “dust and ashes” are forensic and the allusion to Genesis 18:27 best fits the forensic dynamic of Job’s second speech. [12]

The discerning reader may see in the phrase “dust and ashes” a further reference to the “earth”, literally the “dust”, upon which Job’s Redeemer will stand to render judgment in Job’s favour on the Day of Judgment. (Job 19:25-27) In that earlier context, that “earth” is the person Job reduced to ashes. That blood-stained “earth”, that blood-stained “dust and ashes”, cries out for justice. It is Job’s moral claim to an answer for why there is evil in the world. Job’s Redeemer will hear that cry for justice and press Job’s claim in the High Court of Heaven long after Job is dead. Job knows he will have his answer on the Day of the Final Judgment. (Job 19:25-29) The trial date has been set. The author of the Book of Job is here connecting Job’s continuing challenge of God with an anticipated final judgment in Job’s favour.

On the dynamics of his Oath of Innocence, Job cannot withdraw the lawsuit without being damned and putting Satan in the right. He can however adjourn the condemnation that is part of the enforcement mechanism of the Oath of Innocence. An adjournment would be consistent with a continuing challenge. And the appropriate time for that adjournment would be the trial date which has already been set. That is what is artfully being done through the phrase “dust and ashes”, a phrase pregnant with the idea of an ongoing challenge. The lawsuit is adjourned to the Day of the Final Judgment. This is the deepest surrender God knew possible. This is the selfless love and moral integrity for which the world was created. This is what preserves the moral integrity of God and man.

Within a canonical perspective, The Book of Job rewrites an important part of The Book of Revelation. On the Day of the Final Judgment, the trial of God will precede the trial of man. When all human beings appear before the Judgement Seat of God, a preliminary motion will be made to the jurisdiction of the court. No judge who is himself a criminal may pass judgement on humanity. In fact, that preliminary motion has already been made. Job made it through his Oath of Innocence. That question must be settled before God can judge all mankind. God’s trial by Job will continue then and he will complete his defence. It is Job’s conviction that God’s final answer to the question of why there is evil in the world will settle all doubts, wipe away all tears. When all is known and understood, all will bow the knee before the Lord. God will then assume the great white throne of judgment and judge mankind on the selflessness of their love for God.

Job trusts in the goodness of God in spite of all the evil around him. He bows the knee now and will bow it then. His conviction is a matter of great faith. His conviction is a matter of great insight into what has been said and what has been left unsaid. Job will not pass judgment prematurely and neither should we.”

_____

[1] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 244.;

New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 1, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 1112-1114.;

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 4, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 87-90

[2] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 123.

[3] Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreter’s Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996)

p. 628.

[4] The author’s choice of “em’as” may be a pun implying both “ma’as” or “masas”.

[5] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 488.

Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 2, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans. M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 651-660.;

New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 2, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 833-834.;

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 8, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 47-60.

[6] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 488-489.;

New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 2, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 1004-1006.;

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 8, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 437-439.

[7] Strassfeld, M., The Jewish Holidays: A Guide and Commentary (Harper and Row, New York, 1985) p. 115-116. The other day was Rosh Hashanah.

Goldin, H.E., Code of Jewish Law (Hebrew Publishing Company, New York , 1991) Volume 3, pp. 78, 91.

Fellner, J.B., In the Jewish Tradition: A Year of Food and Festivities (Michael Friedman Publishing Group, 1995) p. 31.

[8] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 570-571.

Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 2, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans. M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 734-739.;

New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 3, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 81-82.;

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 9, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 340-355.

[9] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books, Edit. B.M.Metzger and R.E.Murphy (Oxford University Press, New York, 1991) footnote to Job 42:6.

[10] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 571, 909.;

[11] Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) p. 909.;

Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 3, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans. M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 1312-1317.;

New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 4, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 55-59.

[12] For this insight, I am profoundly indebted to Dr. Gerald Janzen.

Reprinted with the permision of Robert Sutherland (the author retains copyright). More information can be found at <http://www.bookofjob.org/> http://www.bookofjob.org