A Theodicy and Lawsuit Drama
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
“A Theodicy
Widely praised as one of the greatest books ever written, The Book of Job is a theodicy, an attempt to morally justify the ways of God to man. It is a most provocative theodicy for it is the story of the most righteous man on earth putting God on trial for crimes against humanity and refusing to acquit him.
To the question of why there is evil in the world, The Book of Job offers a non-traditional answer.
(a) God created a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering in order the make the highest form of love possible: a completely selfless love of man for God. Selfishness corrupts selfless love. If human beings know with certainty that God rewards those who love him, then they will serve God for what they can get from him. Gratuitous evil is morally necessary in order to bring the existence of God into doubt and to sever any connection between righteousness and reward.
(b) God cannot reveal this explanation for evil in this life without defeating his own purpose in the creation of the world and the creation of man.
(c) God expects man to challenge him for the creation of such a world. Prima facie, it is an act of injustice to impose evil for reasons other than punishment or character development. The gratuitous evil God sends is more punishment than any man deserves. And the gratuitous evil God sends destroys character more often than not. Human beings have a moral duty to challenge God for such evil. They have a natural need to know and a natural right to receive the explanation for evil in world. God expects human beings to stand up to him. They sin if they either prematurely condemn or prematurely acquit God for sending evil into the world. They must wait for the answer that only God can give.
(d) God will reveal that answer on the Day of the Final Judgment. At that time, God will resurrect all human beings to give them that answer. God will grant all human beings a special grace to understand the necessity and sufficiency of gratuitous evil. God is causally responsible for the evil in the world, but not morally blameworthy for it. At that time, all will know and understand God’s purpose in the creation of a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering. And God will then judge all human beings on the selflessness of their love for God.
Traditional attempts to justify the ways of God to man have been proven inadequate because of their inability to deal with the problem of gratuitous evil and the problem of God’s non-intervention. Gratuitous evil is evil that is not for the purpose of punishment or character development. The Book of Job presents a new and engaging perspective based entirely on the existence of gratuitous evil and a moral requirement that God not intervene to disclose the reason for evil in this world.
The Book of Job is a masterpiece in world literature, one that has stood the test of millennia. It is a highly integrated work with a profound message for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. The primary task of any interpreter of The Book of Job is to interpret the existing text before him and integrate seemingly disparate elements rather than abandoning the literary challenge and blaming the difficulty on a clumsy redaction of pre-existing texts.
A Lawsuit Drama
The Book of Job presents that philosophical answer in poetry and prose through the vehicle of drama. As drama, The Book of Job is understandably a legal drama.
The Book of Job virtually opens with the God’s trial of Job. The time is Rosh Hashanah, the first of the 10 Days of Awe. The place is heaven, the High Court of Heaven. God opens the books of life and reviews the lives of all men and women. He finds his servant Job to be sinless. In God’s judgment, Job is “blameless and upright, one who fears God and turns from evil” at every juncture. He is humanity at its very best. He is the type of person all of us could be and should be. God’s judgment sets the philosophical stage for all the action that follows. Because Job is sinless, the evil that will befall him is not punishment for sin. Because Job has no character flaw, the evil that will befall him is not for correction or character development.
Almost as soon as God’s judgment on Job issues, Satan challenges the judgment. It is a profound three-fold challenge.
(a) First, God is wrong in his judgment on Job’s goodness. Job is a sinner. He has sin in his life God missed. Job may intend the good, but his motive is selfishness. He serves God only for what he can get from God. Satan claims he can show God that hidden sin. Satan claims he can even get Job to curse God. Satan’s challenge is a claim to the soul of Job.
(b) Second, God has lost his authority to judge. God is in error. He has passed false judgment. He is no longer a perfect being and should step down from his throne. Satan’s challenge is a claim to the throne of heaven.
(c) Third, God is wrong about his plan for mankind. Human beings are not fit for relationship with God. They do not love God. They seek only to manipulate him to get what they can from him. The very idea of a meaningful relationship between God and man is fundamentally wrong. Humanity should be destroyed as a failed project. Satan’s challenge is a claim to destroy the earth and all in it.
With this challenge, there is silence in the heavenly court. Satan has put God himself on trial.
God picks up the gauntlet and elects trial by ordeal. He chooses Job as his personal champion to settle the issue of whether love for God can be completely disinterested. God directs Satan as his personal agent to inflict undeserved and unremitted evil upon his beloved servant Job. God’s hands are tied. He cannot tell Job what has transpired. He cannot give Job the reason for his suffering, lest that give Job a selfish motive to continue his love for God.
God’s trial by ordeal is truly an ordeal for Job. While it starts in heaven, the trial is played out on the earth during the 10 Days of Awe. Job is stripped of everything. God casts Job out his Eden into the wasteland that is the world as we know it. Unlike Adam, Job is expelled from his garden not for his sin but for his righteousness. Not surprisingly, Job struggles to keep faith with a loving God in the midst of this world of undeserved and unremitted suffering. He longs to know the reason behind evil in the world. Through five speeches on the Day of Atonement, Job turns that request into a demand. Through an Oath of Innocence, he institutes formal legal proceedings against God to provoke that answer. Job’s claim is two-fold. God is the author of undeserved evil in the world. Man has a right to know the reason why God has sent such evil into the world. And Job stakes the propriety of his challenge on the integrity of his ways. He puts his eternal salvation on the line and demands that God answer him. If God fails to appear or appears but fails to give the required answer, then Job is morally and legally entitled to condemn God. The condemnation is by way of a curse. God’s trial has built to a feverish pitch. Satan has promised that Job would curse God. And now, Job has set in motion to legal machinery to do it. In the eyes of Job’s friends, this Oath of Innocence is blasphemy. But in the eyes of God, this Oath of Innocence is the pinnacle of righteousness.
To the surprise of all, God appears to Job. But, on the terms of his trial by Satan, God cannot give any direct answers to Job, lest those answers give Job a selfish motive to continue his love for God. Through two speeches, God reviews the natural and the mythological worlds, avoiding any discussion of the human world. God suggests the existence of a possible answer. But the suggestions are veiled. And God never broaches the subject of selfless love. God has been called to give a defense for his creation of this world. Instead, God rests his case having hinted at the existence of a defense, but having never presenting it. And with that act, God places before Job and all mankind a single question: will they condemn God that they themselves might be justified?
Job understands God’s veiled suggestions and draws the proper inferences. Job chooses not to condemn God at this time but to continue to love him. He melts to his knees in worship. Yet Job refuses to retract his lawsuit. He refuses to withdraw his moral and legal claim to an explanation for evil in the world. He will neither prematurely acquit God nor prematurely condemn God. Job grants God the benefit of time to prepare a full and meaningful defense to the charges. Job gives God all of human history to work out his plan for evil in the world. The matter is adjourned to the Day of the Final Judgment for Job to hear from his Redeemer a third time. At that time, Job will pass his final judgment on God. If God fails to give a necessary and sufficient explanation for evil on the Day of the Final Judgment, then Job will condemn God. And he would be right in doing so. In a single moment, Job has become the perfect embodiment of the selfless love and moral integrity for which the world was created.
A moral not an aesthetic resolution
Many scholars find the legal metaphor of an Oath of Innocence inappropriate, though for different reasons.
Some liberal scholars
This author feels such liberal scholars miss a moral resolution for five reasons.
(a) First, they fail to give adequate weight to Satan’s first speech in heaven setting out the moral solution. Selfless love is the reason God chooses to create a world of undeserved and unremitted suffering for Job and by implication, for us. This sets the entire plot in motion. Their resolution however leaves this important point hanging such that the beginning and ending are completely disjointed.
(b) Second, they misinterpret Job’s struggle with God to be a request for a restoration of his former position, rather than a request to know the reason behind evil in the world. As such, they see the moral issue Job raises to be nothing more than a retributive version of justice whereby righteousness is rewarded. This is not the moral right Job raises in his Oath of Innocence. The moral right is the right to know the reason behind evil in the world.
(c) Third, they fail to appreciate the moral restrictions under which God has to operate. God cannot reveal any moral answers directly without defeating his very purpose in the creation and control of evil. As a result, they miss the suggestions of moral purpose in God’s two speeches and the inferences God would have Job draw.
(d) Fourth, they fail to fully appreciate the legal dynamics of the enforcement mechanism of Job’s Oath of Innocence. In particular, they fail to appreciate the distinction between causal responsibility and moral blameworthiness. Thus, they do not understand God’s comments concerning vindication and condemnation in his first speech to Job. And they do not understand Job’s hesitation to proceed beyond his own vindication to a condemnation of God in Job’s first speech to God. Ultimately, they fail to see Job’s adjournment and continuation of his Oath of Innocence implied by the allusion to the story of Abraham and Sodom and Gomorrah in Job’s final speech.
(e) Finally, they fail to give full expression to God’s ultimate judgment on Job. Job and only Job spoke rightly about God. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to deny the ultimate propriety of the moral and legal question as a way of framing man’s encounter with God.
Some conservative scholars
opt for a moral resolution of the question of evil in the world, but their resolution is equally unsatisfying. They interpret Job’s so-called excessive words in his speeches preceding the Oath of Innocence to be morally wrong. They interpret Job’s raising of the Oath of Innocence to be a sin of presumption. While they accept God’s two judgments on Job in heaven, they feel subsequent events show Job sinning. While God is not beyond good and evil, God is under no moral obligation to reveal any reason for sending evil into the world. Thus they would have Job retract his lawsuit in its entirety and repent morally for either his so-called excessive words, his raising of the lawsuit or both. They feel the legal metaphor is inappropriate because while there is an answer to the moral question of evil in the world, no human being has a right to that answer and God is under no duty to give that answer. To the extent there is a scholarly consensus on The Book of Job and there probably is not such a consensus, this is the minority reading.
This author feels such conservative scholars miss a satisfactory moral resolution for three reasons.
(a) First, they fail to understand the depth of Satan’s challenge to God. It is not merely that Job will curse God. It is that God is wrong in his judgment on Job’s goodness. God has missed sin in Job’s life. Such scholars think their moral resolution is possible, because although Job sins, Job does not actually curse God. The problem they have is that their resolution actually makes Satan right in his challenge of God. Satan claimed Job was a sinner and they feel Job sinned. Thus Satan is in the right in his lawsuit with God and God should step down from his throne and destroy mankind.
(b) Second, they fail to give proper weight to Job’s blamelessness and integrity. The raising of the Oath of Innocence is an expression of that blamelessness and integrity. It is what God expects of Job, though he cannot tell him that directly. If Job sins in raising the lawsuit against God, then the sin is blasphemy and God is seriously mistaken in his judgment of Job’s blamelessness and integrity.
(c) Finally, they fail to give full expression to God’s ultimate judgment on Job. Job and only Job spoke rightly about God. 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 for his Oath of Innocence. In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to deny the ultimate propriety of the moral and legal question as a way of framing man’s encounter with God.
My personal interpretation charts a new middle course between these two-fold horrors: a liberal Scylla which places God beyond good and evil and a conservative Charybdis which attributes sin to Job, either for his so-called excessive words, his Oath of Innocence or both. I reject both streams of conventional scholarly interpretation, because they fail to integrate all the elements in the Book of Job. God has a moral reason for sending evil. Man has a need and a right to know that reason. But God need not provide that reason here and now. An adjournment of God’s trial to the Day of the Final Judgment and its continuation then is strongly implied. It is implied through the allusion to Abraham. It is implied through the allusion to a Redeemer who stands up in court at the Final Judgment to plead Job’s cause. It is implied through the allusion to the apocalyptic destruction of Leviathan at the Messianic banquet and the explanation of all things that follows. The legal metaphor is highly appropriate. A satisfactory moral solution is only possible because of the distinction between casual responsibility and moral blameworthiness embedded in Job’s Oath of Innocence. That distinction is central to the criminal law defense of justification or necessity. God may be causally responsible for the evil in the world, but not morally blameworthy for it. He has a necessary and sufficient reason for the evil and will ultimately give it. Job grants him that time without denying his need to know and without withdrawing his right to know. In this work, my intention is not to dialogue with opposing viewpoints further than what I have already done. My intention is to present a single comprehensive and coherent interpretation that preserves the moral integrity of both God and man.
An Interpretative Challenge
Interpreting The Book of Job is a profound struggle for all who read it and hope to understand it.
The book itself offers some help, though it is surprising how many readers manage to disregard the signs and lose their way. The book offers two interpretative aids. The first is God’s judgment, repeated twice by God and once by the author, that Job is “blameless and upright, fearing God and turning from evil” on every occasion. The second is God’s judgment that Job has spoken rightly in what he said about God. These two aids bracket the work and set the parameters for any legitimate interpretation of the author’s message. Any interpretation that calls Job’s integrity into question for demanding that God give an answer as to why there is evil in world can be summarily ruled out as illegitimate. Any interpretation that calls the ultimate propriety of Job’s moral question into question can be similarly and summarily ruled out as illegitimate.
Within those two parameters of interpretation, four things call for the closest examination a reader can muster: (a) Satan’s speech to God, (b) Job’s Oath of Innocence, (c) God’s two speeches to Job and (d) Job’s two responses to God. Only a proper handling of these four keys will unlock the treasures to be found in The Book of Job.
The Book of Job demands much of its readers. In all the overlapping and intersecting lawsuits, the book invites the reader to judgment. It demands judgment on the part of the reader. It provokes judgment on the part of the reader. With its provocative language and anti-climaxes, it even tempts the reader to false judgment. And yet it condemns with the harshest judgment those who judge deceitfully or prematurely, showing bias either towards man or God. In many ways, The Book of Job is an abyss of eternal peril for as you look into it, it looks into you.”
Robert Sutherland
_____
(a) First, there is the integration of God’s two poetic speeches (Job 38:1-40:2; 40:6-42:5) with the prose conclusion. (Job 42:7-17) For many, God’s speeches involve a rejection of the propriety of the moral question yet the prose conclusion affirms the propriety of the moral question.
(b) Second, there is the integration of Job’s Oath of Innocence (Job 27:1-31:40) and his two responses to God (Job 40:3-5; 42:4-6) with the prose conclusion. (Job 42:7-17) For many, Job commits blasphemy in his Oath of Innocence and morally repents for that blasphemy in his final two speeches. Yet God in the prose conclusion affirms that Job has spoken rightly about God.
(c) Third, there is the integration of Elihu’s four poetic speeches (Job 32:1-37:24) with the prose conclusion. (Job 42:7-17) For many, Elihu’s speeches are the climactic refutation of Job’s earlier speeches. Yet God in the prose conclusion (Job 42:7-17) affirms that Job has spoken rightly about God and seemingly condemns Elihu.
(d) Fourth, there is the integration of the Job’s nine speeches in the three cycles (Job 3:1-3:26; 6:1-7:21; 9:1-10:22; 12:1-14:22; 16:1-17:16; 19:1-29; 21:1-21:34; 23:1-24:25, 26:1-31:40) with his final two speeches. (Job 40:3-5; 42:4-6) For many, the defiant and rebellious Job of the first set of speeches has inexplicably been transformed into a cowering and submissive Job in the final set of speeches.
(e) Fifth, there is the integration of a hymn to wisdom (Job 28:1-28)
into the overall framework of Job’s Oath of Innocence. For many, the hymn to wisdom lacks any connection to its surrounding elements.
(e) Sixth, there is the integration of two descriptions of punishment (Job 28:7-23) into the overall framework of Job’s Oath of Innocence. For many, these descriptions of the punishment due the wicked seem inconsistent with Job’s earlier statements that wicked are not punished.
Conventional scholarship has too readily abandoned the attempt to integrate these seemingly disparate elements. Such scholarship speculates that the disparate elements are attributable to a hypothesized historical development of the book.
(a) The Book of Job began with a single prose tale consisting of the present prose opening (Job 1:1-2:13) and prose conclusion. (Job 42:7-17)
For this conclusion, they cite three things: (1) the seemingly archaic Hebrew prose of those elements, (2) the distinct preference of Yahweh rather than Eloah or Shaddai as the name of God, and (3) the apparently similarity of such a simple tale with second millennium B.C. tales such as the Sumerian “Man and his God”, the Akkadian “I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom”, “The Babylonian Theodicy” and the Egyptian “The Protests of an Eloquent Peasant”. For translations of those earlier tales, the reader might consult Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament Edit. J.B. Pritchard (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1969).
(b) A later redactor added an extended poetic dialogue between Job and his friends (Job 3:1-31:37). For this conclusion, they cite two things: (1) the ancient Hebrew prose and the later Aramaisms in that section and (2) the distinct preference of Eloah or Shaddai rather than Yahweh as the name of God. The same redactor may have added the dialogues between Job and God (Job 38:1-42:6).
(c) Another even later redactor added Elihu’s speeches. (Job 32:1-37:24)
For this conclusion, they cite only two things: (1) its similarity with the ideas and expressions of 2 Isaiah, suggesting a late date, and (2) a hypothesized dissatisfaction with the speeches of Job and his friends, requiring a stronger condemnation of Job than the then-existing work provided.
(d) And a final later reader rearranged the opening of Job’s Oath of Innocence by adding descriptions of the wicked (Job 27:7-23) that more properly belong to either Bildad or Zophar. For this conclusion, they cite two things: (1) the seeming inconsistency between Job’s descriptions of the punishment due the wicked and his earlier statements that wicked are not punished and (2) a hypothesized dissatisfaction with the Job’s rebellious challenge of God, requiring a mitigation of Job’s unorthodoxy.
Such conventional scholarship affirms that the tensions created by such accretions over time are irresolvable. The multiplicity of voices creates a cacophony that drowns out any overall message or meaning.
However, prominent scholars such as Norman Habel, John Hartley, David Clines and Carol Newsom have seriously questioned several, if not all, of the assumptions of such an approach.
(a) Parallels to 2nd millennium tales are superficial. None of those tales deal with the issue of a righteous sufferer, certainly not one putting God on trial.
(b) “The prose tale also contains narrative and stylistic details that suggest great antiquity. Yet here, too, one must distinguish between what is genuinely archaic from an artistic imitation of archaic style. The most careful linguistic study has argued that the prose tale in its present form is no older than the sixth century BCE.” Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreter’s Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996) p. 325. “The extensive and symmetrical repetition, highly stylized characters and studied aura of remote antiquity imitate but exaggerate features of folktale style. Alongside these features are subtle word plays and verbal ambiguities that suggest an ironic distance from the aesthethic of simple naivete.” Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreter’s Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996) p. 325.
(c) “The poetic dialogues contain linguistic forms that one would expect to in archaic Hebrew, from approximately the tenth century BCE. Since these speeches appear to be written in a deliberately archaizing style and lack other poetic features one associates with very ancient Hebrew poetry, the argument for such an early date has not been generally accepted.” Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreter’s Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996) p. 325.
(d) “The presence of Elihu, the incoherence of the third cycle, and the role of the poem on wisdom raise interesting but relatively minor interpretative issues.” Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreter’s Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996) p. 323. Such minor problems are no means insurmountable. Elihu produces an important anti-climax and comic relief following the intensity of Job’s Oath of Innocence. The shortened final speeches of Bildad and Zophar mirror the breakdown in dialogue. The poem on wisdom provided a certain respite within the intensity of Job’s Oath of Innocence.
(e) The use of the different names for God in different sections may reflect the differing literary functions of those sections rather than differing historical time periods. Yahweh is the more personal of the two names for God, and not surprisingly appears more often in the more intimate scenes of the prose prologue, the two divine speeches and the prose epilogue. Eloah and Shaddai are more general names for God, and not surprisingly appear in those scenes when God seems distant from man. While the usage is distinctive, it is by no means exclusive. The name Yahweh does appear in sections where the name Eloah and Shaddai are predominant and vice-versa.
(f) “Critics who argue that the book of Job developed in this way [the hypothesis of growth by stages] rarely address the question of how one is supposed to read the book as it now exists. Indeed, one of the unfortunate consequences of this hypothesis about the composition of Job is that it has often led to interpretations of the book that fail to take its final or canonical form seriously.” Newsom, C..A., The Book of Job in The New Interpreter’s Bible: Volume 4 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1996) p. 322.
I find their textual arguments of these scholars persuasive and I follow in their footsteps, believing the work to be the product of a single author writing in the 6th or 5th centuries B.C.
Since it is entirely possible that The Book of Job is the product of a single author, it is reasonable to expect that the author intended to communicate an overall message. Thus, any serious interpretation of the book should address and attempt to integrate the disparate elements described above for they may be an integral part of the author’s overall message. I offer this work Putting God on Trial as one such attempted integration, though I have no illusions that it will be the final word on this perennial classic.
The Book of Job is an intentionally ambiguous work defying superficial and simplistic readings. At many points, a multiplicity of complementary, even contradictory, interpretations are possible. It is only the legitimacy of one’s overall interpretation of the book as a whole that allows one to choose between such interpretations. In any event, The Book of Job is a goldmine. All who seriously mine its treasures come away enriched, whether or not they reach the same conclusions I do.
(1) Frye, J.B., Legal Language in the Book of Job (British Thesis Service, West Yorkshire, 1973);
(2) Scholnick, S.H., Lawsuit Drama in the Book of Job (UMI Dissertations, Ann Arbor, 1975);
(3) Dick, M.B., Job 31: A Form-Critical Study (UMI Dissertations, Ann Arbor, 1977)
These works may be difficult to obtain, but are worth the effort. The reader might find the following papers by two of those authors more accessible.
(1) Scholnick, S.H., Poetry in the Courtroom: Job 38-41 in Sitting with Job: Selected Studies on the Book of Job (Baker House, Grand Rapids, 1992),
(2) ——–, The Meaning of Mispat (Justice) in the Book of Job in Sitting with Job: Selected Studies on the Book of Job (Baker House, Grand Rapids, 1992),
(3) Dick, M.B., The Legal Metaphor in Job 31 in Sitting with Job: Selected Studies on the Book of Job (Baker House, Grand Rapids, 1992)
For an even broader perspective on the concept of challenging God, the reader might profitably look consult the following three works:
(1) Laytner, A., Arguing with God: A Jewish Tradition (Jason Aronson, London, 1990);
(2) Blumenthal, David R., Facing the Abusing God: A Theology of Protest (Westminster/John Knox, Louisville, 1993) and
(3) Fuchs, Gisela, Mythos und Hiobdichting: Aufnahme und Umdeutung altorientalische Vorstellungen (Koln: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Berlin, 1993).
And I thank Dr. Walter Michel for his insight in that respect.
Dick, M.B., Job 31: A Form-Critical Study (UMI Dissertations, Ann Arbor, 1977) p.180, 183.
Frye, N., The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (Academic Press, Toronto, 1982) pp. 196-198.
Gordis, R., The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965) p. 304.
Gordis, R., The Book of Job: Commentary, New Translation and Special Studies (The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, 1978) p. xxx-xxx1.
Habel, N.C., The Old Testament Library: The Book of Job (Westminister Press, Philadelphia, 1985) p.66, 579.
Habel, N.C., The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible: The Book of Job (Cambridge University Press, London, 1975) p. 228.
Scholnick, S.H., Lawsuit Drama in the Book of Job (UMI Dissertations, Ann Arbor, 1975) p. 303-305.
Westermann, C., The Structure of the Book of Job: A Form-Critical Analysis, Trans. C.A.Meunchow (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1977)
126-127.
Anderson, F.I. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries: Job (Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, 1974) p. 292.
Fyall, R.S., Now My Eyes Have Seen You: Images of Creation and Evil in the Book of Job (Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, 2002) p. 180.
Hartley, J.E., The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Job (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1988) p. 537.
Pope, M., The Anchor Bible: Job (Doubleday, New York, 1973) p. lxxx.
Terrien, S., The Book of Job in The Interpreter’s Bible: Volume 3 (Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1954) p. 1193.
Tur-Sinai, N.H., The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Kiryath Sepher Ltd., Jerusalem, 1957) p. 578.
Discussion
Comments are disallowed for this post.
Comments are closed.