The Queering of Job: Summary and Notes

January 1, 2006

SUMMARY

The main portion of the book of Job is written in poetic form, sandwiched between the prologue (chapters 1, 2) and epilogue (chapter 42) that are presented in phrose. The story opens with a peek into the life of Job, a man who is living a blessed life, surrounded by wealth and possessions, children and wife, a distinguished reputation, and one who is blameless and upright, who fears God and avoids evil. The story then leaves earth as the narrator lets us in on a scene played out in heaven that Job has no clue is occurring. In the heavenly court before the sons of God, a challenge is being made between God and the satan. God boasts of his servant Job to the Satan, confirming the narrator’s evaluation of Job as one who is blameless, upright, who fears God and avoids evil. The Satan shrugs at God’s evaluation of Job. “It’s not like he does it for nothing!” suggesting that were God to remove all the blessings he’s showered on Job it would be a very different Job indeed. God gives the Satan permission to take everything from Job confident that Job will continue to maintain his character and sure enough, the loss of his home, his children, his property and possessions don’t dissuade Job from his absolute faith in God. Not one to give up easily the Satan returns to the heavenly court and ups the stakes, arguing that if Job were to experience personal suffering to his own flesh that would do the trick. The test has been too easy but the Satan is convinced when pushed to the limits Job will curse God, proving once and for all that the only reason he ever worshipped God in the first place was because of what he was getting out of the deal. Once again God considers the challenge, permitting the Satan to inflict suffering on Job with the stipulation that his life be spared. And still, though his body is covered in painful boils Job rejects the advice of his wife to curse God and retires to the ash heap where he’s joined by three friends who sit with him in silence for seven days to mourn Job’s suffering and afflictions.

By chapter three, the Job who seven days before had exhibited pious acceptance of his situation, unwaveringly affirming his allegiance God, is now the Job who opens his mouth to curse the day of his birth. He regrets that day had never happened and if that day was necessary, that at the very least he should have died at birth. In this Job curses creation and by doing so indirectly curses the One who is responsible for it all. Job can find nothing on his part that would warrant God to cause such suffering and whereas the Satan had argued in the opening that God had created a hedge of protection around his servant Job, Job now declares that God’s hedge is an entrapment. This deep cry coming forth from Job arouses the three friends from their own silence, beginning an endless flood of arrogant posturing, unrequested advice, harsh judgments and empty consolations that carry us through chapter 38. Though these chapters are often referred to as dialogues they more often resemble monologues hurled between Job and the three friends, with only occasional words and phrases tossed back in sarcastic and ridiculing tones.

As Carol Newsom argues “Job and his friends not only hold different positions about the nature of God, the moral order of the world, and the meaning of what has befallen Job, but they also authorize their claims on very different grounds.”1 And what words of insight on the cause of Job’s suffering do his three friends bring and in what authority to they place their wisdom?

Eliphaz claims divine revelation as the source for the truth that he’s preparing to impart to Job (Job 4:12-16). Bildad bases his knowledge in tradition and that what he is saying is true because it’s always been the accepted truth from generation to generation (Job 8:8-10). Zophar arrogantly proposed that his knowledge comes from a general source of knowledge that he, being so close to God is privy to possessing (Job 11:7-9).

The theology the three friends are intent on defending beginning in the first round of speeches is that of retribution theology and other dogmas of traditional theology. The good are rewarded and the evil are punished therefore there is no other option than that Job sinned and if he would but repent all would be restored. Not only that but for good measure Eliphaz comforts Job with the idea that God only corrects those he loves so Job should be grateful for what he is currently suffering, receiving it as an indication of God’s love for him (Job 5:17-18). Bildad reminds Job that God is a God of justice so what Job is receiving must be just (Job 8:3-6) and Zophar chimes in by telling Job that while he might have forgotten the sins he committed, God knows what they are and they must surely exist (Job 11:4-6).

By the second and third round of speeches the contradictions to the friends arguments have spiraled out of control. The same Eliphaz who has assured Job that the righteous will be rewarded now tells Job that no one is righteous and no one is to be trusted by God (Job 15:14-17). In Preaching Job, John C. Holbert comments “If Job is both righteous and rejected by God, then Eliphaz’ neat and clean theology is up for grabs. Eliphaz must destroy Job; if not, Eliphaz himself may be destroyed. He is fighting for his theological life.”2 By his final speech he gives up the claim that no one is righteous before God but instead says that when people are righteous God doesn’t even find pleasure in it and for this reason no one is of any use to God, and yet ironically in his final words to Job he encourages him to be useful to God (compare Job 22:2 with Job 22:21-27). Bildad fairs no better and by the third speech has such a need to affirm Job’s wickedness that he condemns all of humanity by saying they are nothing more than maggots and worms. Whereas tradition views humanity as the crown of God’s creation, Bildad is now defending tradition by contradicting tradition and calling humanity worms! (compare Psalm 8:4-9 with Job 25:4-6).

Throughout the speeches as their arguments deteriorate their resolve to destroy Job’s character increases. In his first speech Eliphaz saw Job as a good man though a sinner. By the second round he accuses him of godlessness and wickedness, and by the time he reaches his flustered finale he claims that Job oppresses the widows and orphans, and ignores those who are hungry and thirsty, despite that in the opening speech he had been a strength to the weak and supported those who stumbled (compare Job 4:3,4 with Job 22:5-9). For Bildad there’s no room for questioning his theology and so to make Job’s wickedness be all the more certain he extends his charge by claiming all humans, and that includes you Job!, are nothing but maggots and worms to begin with and no one is just in God’s sight. Sadly in all of this, an understanding of God emerges as one removed from humanity, who finds no pleasure in humanity, and no usefulness or value to their lives. Not to be outdone, Zophar concludes his final speech with a dramatic description of the condition of the wicked and their fate. It seems that with their theological arguments weakened the only thing left for the three friends to resort to is character assassination.

As the friends offer the traditional understanding of such suffering Job responds vehemently to their counsel, all the while maintaining his integrity, demanding that God appear before him in court so that his case can be tried and he may be at last vindicated. (Job’s side of the dialogues will be filled out in the main essay.)

Following a Hymn to Wisdom in Chapter 28, Elihu, yet another friend, appears on the scene who charges the others with not speaking well for God but assuring them all that if Job listens to what he has to say he will at last receive knowledge, only to launch into another speech that does nothing more than echo those of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar.

After remaining silent throughout, God finally makes his appearance in the whirlwind but rather than answering Job directly God presents a whole new set of questions, informing Job that when God is done speaking Job will be expected to answer. Answering God won’t be difficult since it seems there are only four possible answers to the long list of God’s questions.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”
“Nowhere.”

“Or who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb?”
“I don’t know.”

“Who has the wisdom to number the clouds?”
“Only you.”

“Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions?”
“No.”

In describing the cosmos and all the creatures of the animal kingdom God lets Job know he isn’t at the center of the universe, that everything doesn’t revolve around him and his needs, “but around God and the complex world that God has created and is in the business of sustaining.” 3 In God’s second speech he informs Job that the world isn’t about justice and injustice; it’s not run by a system of morality but order and chaos and as chaos exists so too does evil. God’s words to Job are harsh and though he has heard Job in repeating back words Job had previously spoken, God clearly isn’t interested in satisfying Job’s quest for understanding.

After listening to God’s speeches Job responds and traditional interpretation is that Job’s words serve as a confessional or repentant response. Speculation as to the reason for Job’s repentance varies from an acknowledgment that the charges he had made toward God throughout his speeches were false to questioning God and his ways in the first place. These interpretations are reflected in Biblical translations of Job 42:6.

Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
(King James Version)

Therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
(New Revised Standard Version)

Therefore I disown what I have said, and repent in dust and ashes.
(New American Bible)

Therefore I loathe [my words] and abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes.
(The Amplified Bible)

In considering an alternative interpretation it’s important to look at both the Hebrew text and the context in which Job 42:6 appears.4

In Hebrew the verse reads:

Let me break it down a little more before offering the alternative meaning

Rather than translating this word as “in dust and ashes”, a more accurate translation would include, upon, on account of, or because of. In Genesis 18 18:27 Abraham says he is but dust and ashes and earlier in Job 30:19 Job says that he has become but dust and ashes. When referring to dust and ashes, Job is speaking of the essence of being a mortal human rather than his location.

The common word for repentance in Hebrew is “shub” which means “return to God” while the meaning of the word used here conveys pity, regret, to be sorry or to renounce. Because Job has always been historically seen as a repentant figure, that preexisting view might well have influenced the translation of this word

The word translated alternately as abhor, loathe, despise, and disown has no personal pronoun affixed to it in the most ancient manuscript, therefore any object following this word has been added at the discretion of the translators alone.

In consideration of these words another translation suggested by the Hebrew would be “Therefore I loathe and am sorry on account of dust and ashes.” But what or who does Job loathe? Let’s look again at the context of the dialogue in which this verse is located.

Job 42:1-6 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 loathe and am sorry on account of dust and ashes.”

Job is speaking to God in response to his appearance in the whirlwind. Think about the God who shows up in the whirlwind. Who is he if not a character of the God represented in the words of the three friends? Never responding directly to the pleas of suffering Job, this God stands far off from creation, showing no compassion, speaking without love, but instead posing a barrage of questions to Job meant to trap him against the wall in defeat. God recognizes no part of Job’s suffering, a suffering that we know from the prologue and epilogue was caused by God. God appears less a lovingly Parent than a divine bully or as someone in my seminary class commented, “God’s appearance in the whirlwind is a little like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain! In a roaring voice you hear God shout ‘Do not look behind the curtain!’” At the end of two long speeches with no mention of God’s relationship to humankind and not a word to console a servant who in the beginning of the story God had declared was blameless and upright, God tells Job to answer him.

Well. How do you suppose Job feels? Suffering physically from the boils festering on his body, mourning the loss of his children and all he had possessed, emotionally drained by the constant verbal assault of four arrogant friends and frustrated in his attempts to get someone to see that there is nothing he did to deserve what he is suffering, Job is now called to respond to God’s words. May I suggest that given all of this, Job’s response wasn’t one of repentance but in this moment Job loathes this God who has come to him just as his friends, spouting traditional theology, had described him. In the previous verse Job said that he had only heard of this God by his ears but now his own eyes had seen him, therefore I reject you and I’m sorry on account of my human condition. It would seem to me that the words of God that immediately follow Job’s response also affirm this interpretation.

Job 42:7 After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.

The God that appears in the whirlwind is very much the God that was reflected in the speeches of Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu, so what sense does it make for God to say they had spoken wrongly of him and if Job had in fact repented of his words why would God say that Job had spoken rightly? When I consider all interpretations of this passage the one that makes the most sense to me in consideration of the Hebrew, the context of the surrounding passages and the general themes of the book of Job is that Job is rejecting traditional theology and the God it requires.

Whatever the exact nature of Job’s response is, God vindicates Job by declaring that he alone had spoken rightly about God and then the story concludes with God restoring Job to more than what he had originally possessed. This nice neat ending is the tricky part because it’s difficult to make sense of the ending in light of the negative message of retribution theology woven throughout the story. It would seem a contradiction for Job to have all that had been taken from him and more returned. Yet, the restoration of Job’s health, status, and possessions isn’t a result of Job pleasing God and earning a reward. What Job receives isn’t based upon what Job has or hasn’t done but is an act of restitution on the part of God. When a thief steals from someone and is caught, they’re responsible to make restitution and because we know from the Prologue that God was the one who caused Job’s suffering by allowing the Satan power to do so, God is providing restitution to Job.

Now, if you stayed with me through that very long summary of the book of Job, let’s head back over to the “queering of Job”.

FOOTNOTES

MacLeish, Archibald, J.B., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1956), p. 30.
Newsom, Carol, New Interpreter’s Bible: Commentary on Job, Volume 4, (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1995-2002), p. 334.
Holbert, John C., Preaching Job, (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999), p. 31.
For the alternative meaning to Job’s response in Job 42:1-6 I relied heavily upon my class notes taken from Jeffrey Kuan’s course on “The Book of Job” at Pacific School of Religion, in the Spring of 2003, and an article by John Briggs Curtis entitled “On Job’s Response to Yahweh.”
Ibid., p. 111.
Newsom, Carol, New Interpreter’s Bible: Commentary on Job, Volume 4, (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1995-2002), p. 358.
Newsom, Carol, New Interpreter’s Bible: Commentary on Job, Volume 4, (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1995-2002), p. 431.
Brown, William P., Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapid: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), p. 72.
Newsom, Carol, New Interpreter’s Bible: Commentary on Job, Volume 4, (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1995-2002), pgs. 435, 436
Penchansky, David, The Betrayal of God: Ideological Conflict in Job, (St. Louis: Westminster, 1990), p. 18.
Brown, William P., Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapid: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), p. 118.

GLOSSARY

Orientation: As defined by the Webster-Mirriam Dictionary, orientation is a) the act or process of orienting or of being oriented, b) the state of being oriented, c) a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest; arrangment or alignment.

Social Location: Those components that comprise a person’s life experience including the physical, socio-economic, political, cultural, religious and historical context in which they live. Reading from this Place: Social Location and Biblical Interpretatio n

Theodicy: A defense of God’s goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil. When Bad Things Happen to Good Peopl e

Traditional or Orthodox Theology: Theology has to do with an understanding of God and the God-human relationship. Traditional Theology is an established set of religious beliefs that have been handed down across the centuries. This type of theology supports a transhistorical view that the teachings of the Bible, meaning that what was written within the context of an ancient culture speaks as relatively to those in the 21st century. A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying & How a New Faith is Being Born

The Satan: Though translated in most versions of the Bible as “Satan,” the literal translation from Hebrew is hasatan, or the satan. Rather than being a proper name, hasatan denotes a general title for someone who plays an adversarial role. In the story of Job, the satan worked on behalf of God as a member of God’s heavenly court, an adversary of humankind, searching out those living in disobedience to God. It’s also helpful to note that capitalization doesn’t appear in Hebrew but was only added when translated into English therefore adding to the misunderstanding of this term.

The heavenly court and the sons of God: All the major religions that pre-dated or existed in the ancient world were polytheistic. A typical model would be that seen in Canaanite religion where there was a head god named El who presided over a host of lesser gods known as ben-el or sons of El. These gods interacted with each other and oversaw the events of the world in a court setting or a pantheon. As a people who maintained a monotheistic perspective from within a polytheistic worldview, the Israelites conceived of a heavenly court where Elohim reigned over the sons of Elohim. The sons of Elohim weren’t understood as independent gods but as divine beings belonging to and coming from God, in the same way that to say you are a child of God means you belong to God.

Blameless: One of the main characteristics of Job offered by the narrator and then confirmed by God. Tam is the Hebrew word that appears in this text and is better translated as “integrity” rather than as blameless or perfect. Integrity carries the meaning of simplicity, or sincerity of heart and intention, truthfulness, and uprightness. This word is central to the story of Job for throughout his suffering Job defends his integrity.

Theophany: A visible appearance of God.

Spread the Word!