WHO IS THIS WHO DARKENS COUNSEL - DAVID R. JACKSON La ironia retorica en los discursos de Job.pdf

7/26/2019 WHO IS THIS WHO DARKENS COUNSEL - DAVID R. JACKSON La ironia retorica en los discursos de Job.pdf

1/16

WTJ72 (2010): 153-67

BIBLICAL STUDIES

'WHO IS THIS WHO DARKENS COUNSEL?"

THE USE OF RHETORICAL IRONY

IN GOD'S CHARGES AGAINST JOB

DAVID R. JACKSON

The extended debate in the Book of Job draws the readerin.Swayed by thevarious speakers, the reader feels pityforJob,is horrified by his sufferingand outragedatthe cruelty of the friends. The force of Job's defense, especially

as he speaks to and about God, heightens the discomfort. As the three friends

fade away exhausted, Elihu intensifies the assault only to be followed by God

himself who fearfully and aggressively questionsJob.Given the prologue this

seems contradictory. Then suddenly God vindicates Job and condemns thefriends. The resolution of this long debate, without God actually explaining

why any of this has happened, sends the audience away to reflect on matters.

The reader howeverhasthe benefit of the prologue. Some have tried to resolve

the tension by removing the prologue and epilogue from the original form of

the book, but moving the problem from author to editors still leaves the ques

tion begging.

A clue to the literary sophistication of this book may lie in Job's observation

that he is amasal(ariddle,parable, or proverb). While claiming that God haskepthisfriends from understanding(Job17:4;cf. Matt 13:11) Job declares that

he himself has become amasal tothem(17:6).Therighteousmanisamasal and

the secret to understanding him is hidden from the wicked, so Job says (17:10),

"I cannot find a wise man among you."

Polk concludes, with respect to themasal:

From the pointofviewoftheparable,thereaders' determinationtowardit,whatevertheirresponses, identifies theirplace in the parable'sworld,and hence their relation to

itstruth.Inour judgementstoward theparable,theparablejudgesus.So it is with themaSal.

1


2/16

154 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

And so itiswith the Book ofJob.2The inherent ambiguity of the wording of

42:6(did Jobdespise/reject something or did he melt; did he repent or was he

comforted?) may be an intentional aspect of themasaltechnique,Themasalassumes a polemical context. It discriminates wisdom from folly.

The Book of Job is constructed as a dramatic and passionate polemic fre

quently employing sarcasm and irony. An analysis of God's final addresses to

Job reveals a careful and repetitive use of technical terms that formed the key

concepts in that polemic.3Particularly significant are the words that the LORD

had said to the satan in 2:3:4

Have you considered Myservant Job?For there is no one like him on the earth, a

blameless{tarn)and upright(ysr)man fearing(yr

3

)God and turning away(swr)fromevil(rac).And he still holds fast hisintegrity(tummh)although you incited Meagainhim to ruin himwithoutcause(hinnm).

Throughout the polemic Job has argued that this is exactly what the LORD

had done to him, in a context where neither he, nor his immediate audience,

could have any knowledge of the events that precipitated God's actions. God's

final affirmation (42:7-8) that "you [the friends] have not spoken of Me what is

right asMy servantJobhas"is ashockingandconfronting confirmation of these

words. Job and God agree that God did thisto Jobwithoutcause.If, by this, theCreator of all the earth were to be accused of injustice, then the Creator here

pleads guilty. But his addresstoJob,and reaffirmation ofJob'sintegrity(tarn),

occursinthe context ofanextended and confronting reminder thattheCreator

is not accountable to the creature. This then removes any grounds for any accu

sationthat Jobhas been attemptingtojustify himself at God's expense. What

then are we to make of the rhetoric of the LORD's addressto Job(38-41)?

Charge # 1 . Job 38:2 Who is this that darkens{hsk)

counsel(csh)by words without knowledge(yd

c)?

Job has asked God whether it is right for God to contend with Job and

oppress him while looking favorably on "theschemes(csh)of the wicked" (10:3).

Hehasconfessed that wisdom, might,counsel(CJA),andunderstanding belongto

the LORD (12:13). He says:

Thomas; VTSup3;Leiden:E.J. Brill, 1955),162-69;E Hauck,"parabole," 7JWT5:744-61;GeorgeM Landes,"Jonah:AMasal?"inIsraeliteWisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel

(ed John G Gammie et al ; Missoula Mont : Scholars Press 1978) 137-58; David Winston Suter


3/16

RHETORICAL IRONYIN JOB 155

He [God]reveals mysteriesfromthedarkness (hsk)And brings thedeep darkness (salmwei)intolight.(12:22)

Though both Job and Eliphaz assert that "thecounselof the wicked is far

from mg" (21:16; 22:18), Eliphaz falsely accuses Job of saying that God cannot

know or see whatishappening on the earth, because he is shrouded in darkness

beyond the clouds (22:13-14):

Yousay,

"What does God know?Can He judge throughthethickdarkness[thick cloud]?

Cloudsare ahidingplace (seer)for Him,so that Hecannot see;Arid He walks on thevault of heaven.'*

Itisdifficult tofindanythingJob hassaid that would supply a basis forthischarge*

Elihu accused Job of ignorance of God's ways ("Job speaks withoutknowledge

yd*]*9)and of a lack of wisdom (34:33, 35). Sarcastically he challenges Job,

"Teach us what we shall say to Him; we cannot arrange our case because of

darkness(Afifc)" (37:19). He mocks Job's ignorance in the midst of his own cosmic

tour of the Creator's powers. Hisfinalwords bring down a howling humiliation

of contradiction upon his own head. After waxing eloquent on die subject ofthe visible appearance of God in all his powers, he concludes that "we cannot

find him'*because he is so "exalted in power'* (37i23). Hewarns Jobthat it is

because ofhispower that men fear God and thatis alsowhy God does not look

on anyoneWhothinks they are wise (37:24). Immediately the God who cannot

be found appears, and the one Elihusaidwould not "regard"aperson likeJob,

proceeds to declare Job to have spoken what isright*It is Elihu who disappears

and Job who remains to be vindicated.

Itisin this context that Godputsthefirstcharge to Job (38:2). God has takenup Eliphaz's and Elihu's charge andisasking Job whetherit istrue (cf. also 38:3;

40:7;42:4) In reply Job re-affirms what he has said all along: that he does not

know the answers and wants God to speak. The answer to God's question,

"Who is this that darkens counsel?" is "the friends," not "Job."

Charge #2. Job 38:3; 40.7 I will ask(PI)you,

and you instruct Me("causeme to know"ydc)

Earlier(13:22),Jobhad poetically asked God to do one of two things:


4/16


calling upon God to help him and to resolve this impasse. He has not filed a

lawsuit against God. He cannot. He has only asked God to permit him to do so

and then to make it possible.

If now God has chosen the first alternative ("call,and I will answer" 38:3b;

40:2b),then he has acceded to Job's requests:

Zme know (ydc)why you contend(ryi)with me. (10:2b)

How many are my iniquities and sins?

Make known to me (ydc)my rebellion and mysin.(13:23)

Job believes that if he were to be able to present his case before God,

I wouldlearn("Hewould cause me to know")the words which He would answer,

And perceive what He would say to me. (23:5)

He specifically denies that anyone could teach God anything:

Can anyone teach (Imd)Godknowledge(yd%

In that He judges(yispotseecharge #5) those on high? (21:22)

He sarcastically rebukes the friends because their instruction has been worse

than useless.

Whatcounsel(*shseecharge #1) you have given to one without wisdom!

What helpful insightyou haveabundantlyprodded("causedme toknow")\ (26:3)

In fact, everything they have said could be learned from a fish or a bird (12:7-8).

He is sure that God knows the answer.

ButHe knowsthe way I take;

When He has tried me, I shall come forth as gold. (23:10)

As a prospector searching for precious metals and stones, Job describes how

only God knows where wisdom is to be found (28:12-28, esp. v. 23):

God understands its way,

AndHe knowsits place.

There is no instance where Job offers to teach God, in spite of Zophar's inter

pretation of his words (11:4). The closest Job comes to offering to teach anyone

anything is where he attempts to teach the friends something of the power ofGod (27:11), but he notes immediately that the friends already know this (27:12).

Rather he has consistently rejected the teaching of the friends and sought to hear


5/16

RHETORICAL IRONY IN JOB 157

Elihuofferstoteach (33:12,33)and claims to beperfect in wisdom (36:4)he

has a belly "full of words" and is bursting to let them out (32:18-20). He is

offended that anyone would expect God to "give an account of all his doings"

(33:13) butthis,too, is an exaggeration ofJob'swords.Jobhas repeatedly asked

tobe vindicated. The only explanationheseeks would be for Godtotell him what

he had done to deserve all this, if in fact that were the case.

Charge #3. Job 40:2 Will the faultfinder(ysr)

contend (ryB)with the Almighty?

Would it be accurate to describe JobasfindingfaultwithGod(ysr= one who

corrects, disciplines, admonishes,orchastens)?In4:3the verbal form of theword is

to describe Job as one who hasadmonished many.It is difficult tofinda reference

where Job might be seen to have attempted to correct God. It is even more

difficult to understand how God could affirm therightnessof Job's words in all

his speeches if he were here accusinghimof attemptingtocorrect Godhimself.

On the other hand, Job's friends have been intense in their attempts to find

fault with Job and with Job's claim to his own righteousnessand therefore

with God's affirmations of 1:8; 2:3 (which is the narrator's opening premise, cf.

1:1), even though they were unaware of them. Driving their passion is their

understanding thatJob'sclaim to innocence imputes fault to God and makes

God out to be unjust (8:3). Axiomatically, they are certain that Job's suffering is

thechastisement/fdisapline (ysr)of God for his sin (5:17; 36:10).

Job verbalizes the perceived discrepancy between the righteousness of God

andthesuffering of an innocent man. He vividly describes what is happening. He

desperately wants tofinda wayforGod to vindicate him. Buthedoes not findfault

with God (cf. 10:3,7).Repeatedly the friends put this charge to Job and repeatedly,inincreasing frustration,herejectsthecharge.Job issearchingforan under

standing whereby both God and Job are vindicated asrighteous(ch. 27).

A review of the words Job addressed to Godfindshim, athis mostvehement

moments, calling upon God to affirm his innocence (cf. 7:20-21; 10:7-8; 13:23-

24).It is the friends who interpret Job's speeches as bringing direct charges

against God (cf. 33:8-11; 34:5), thus:

Bildad: DoesGodpervertjustice (mispi)?

Or does theAlmightypervertwhat is right (sdq)?(8:3;cf.34:12;40:8)


6/16


9:15, 19, 34-35), but he sees God as the one who has initiated the case (10:2).

The case is being heard in the wrong court as the friends contendwithJob,as if

they were bringing God's case against Job on God's behalf (13:8). Job wants

God alone to hear his case and decide between Job and his adversary= "the one

whocontendswith me" (31:35). Here again is the ambiguity of themasalpolemic.

The one who understands knows that the adversary is the satan not God.

God's words to Job in 40:2 are almost a paraphrase of Job's accusation

against the friends in ch. 13. There Job rebuked the friends for attempting to

contend on God's behalf (13:8). He claims that they are misrepresenting God

(13:7) and speaking lies about Job (13:4).

Charge #4. Job 40:2 Let him who reproves(ykfj)

God answer (cnh)it.

It is difficult to see how Job's actions are worthy of this rebuke. Theverb ykh,

when applied to a person as the direct object, means toreprove, chide,orcorrect.It

can also meanto arguewith.Eliphaz uses this term (5:17; 22:4) to claim that God

is reprovingJob, and Job (6:25-26) compares Eliphaz's rebuke to casting lots for

orphans.

Job first calls for someone else to stand between God and Job and take thepart of an umpire (ykh 9:33). Later (13:3) he expresses his desire to "arguewith

God." In fact he is prepared toarguehis case before God (13:15) even if God

kills him. Job's problem is that he cannot imagine how this could be possible:

0 that a man mightplead (ykh)with God

As a man with his neighbor! (16:21)

Oh that I knew where I might find Him,

That I might come to His seat!

1would present my case(mispt)before HimAndfillmy mouth witharguments(yki).

I would learn the words whichHe would answer(cnh),

And perceive what He would say to me.

Would Hecontend with me (ryb)by the greatness of His power?

No,surely He would pay attention to me.

There the uprightwould reason with Him(ykh);

And I would be delivered forever from my Judge. (23:3-7)

Job's assertion that the LORD would reasonwith the upright is taken a stepfurther by Isaiah (1:18) who extends the LORD's invitation to wayward Judah:


7/16


Eliphaz connects the question of rebukewith Job'sfear (yr>)of God, and his

integrity(tarn).He sarcastically asks if God reprovesJob because hefearsGod so

much (22:4)an oxymoron resonant with irony (cf. 1:8-9;4:6). We note that atthe inception of Job's trial God had offered Job's integrityand the fact that he

fearsGod(1:8;2:3) as the bait, and the question put to God by the satan in reply

was,"DoesJobfearGod^&rnothing(hinnm)?"(1:9).

So Eliphaz's appeal (4:6) is initially on solid ground, butisimmediately com

promised (4:7-8) by his understanding that the righteous cannot suffer since

that would be unjust. He therefore advises Job to call upon the LORD and

upon him alone (5:5, 8). The implication is that Job should sue for mercy as a

penitent sinner (cf. Bildad's advice at 8:20). But then that would require Job todeny his integrity and the satan would have won.

Elihu on the other hand wants Job to "be tried to the limit" because "he adds

rebellion to his sin" as he "multiplies his words against God" (Job 34:36-37; cf.

charge #1). He is outraged that Job would continue to maintain his innocence

because that would imply injustice on God's part, and so is heard to be arebuke

of Godhimself.

The Book of Job is structured around a prolonged debate in which each side

answersthe other. It begins when God questions the satan and the satananswers

(1:7,9; 2:2,4).Job has consistently expressed his realization that no one could

answerGod (9:3, 14-16, 32) even though he would attempt to do so if God

would give him the opportunity (13:22; 14:15). His only hope would be if a

mediator could speak on his behalf (9:32-33;16:19). He bewails God's failure to

answerhiscries (19:7, 16; 30:20; 31:35) and longs to "learn the words which he

wouldanswer" (23:5).

Elihu is offended that Job would want God toanswerhim (33:13).

In this fourth charge God is again verbalizing the accusations of the friends.

Charge # 5 . Jo b 40:8

Will you reallyannul(prr)Myjudgment (mispt)?

Will youcondemn (rsc)Me that you maybe justified

(sdq)?

Behind this charge stand the mutually exclusive assumptions of the two sides

in this debate. Job believes, and therefore assumes, that God's judgment is thathe is righteous. The friends cannot countenance such a possibility. To answer


8/16


9/16


Do you think this is accordingtojustice(mispat,literally"to judgment')?

Do you say, "Myrighteousness (sdq)is more than God's"? (35:2)

Elihu is outraged too because Job has demonstrated that, in this world, living

a life that pleases God "profits a man nothing" (34:9), but then Job has pointed

out the reality of righteous suffering vividly and demonstrated the falsity of the

friends' assertions that the righteous always prosper and the wicked always suffer.

Elihu presents himself as the defender of the LORD's righteousness (36:3).

Like Eliphaz before him Elihu mocks the idea that God would be interested in

Job'srighteousness (35:7; cf. 22:3) even if it were so.

To be fair to the friends, Job has used some very strong language in his ad

dresses to God. It is easy to see how they (and the reader) might take these statements as a basis for the charges expressed here by the LORD (40:8).

In Job 7, Job anticipates his death (7:1-10). At 7:7 the second person plurals

of ch. 6 become singulars as Job turns his address away from the friends and

towards God. It is to God, then, that he feels free to speak plainly and to com

plain (7:11), literally "meditate Csiyhh) in the bitterness of life." Later (15:4)

Bildad will recall Job's words and accuse him of hindering "meditation (siykh)

before God."

Job says that on top of all his other sufferings God is sending him nightmares(7:14) so that he has no relief even in his sleep. Death would be better than his

pains (7:15). He is going to die eventually anyway, so, he asks why God won't

just let him die now (7:16). He then presses his point in some of the boldest lan

guage of the book (7:17-21):

What is man that You magnify him,

And that You are concerned about him,

That You examine him every morning

And try him every moment?Will You never turn Your gaze away from me,

Nor let me alone until I swallow my spittle?

Have I sinned?

What have I done to You, O watcher of men?

Why have You set me as Your target,

So that I am a burden to myself?

Why then do You not pardon my transgression

And take away my iniquity?

For now I will lie down in the dust;And You will seek me, but I will not be.


10/16


In his reply Job struggles to imagine how a man could ever win a dispute with

God and declares such a thing to be impossible. The Creator-creature distinc

tion makes this so(9:1-14).Job says that all he could do would be to cry out formercy (9:15).

In this flow of thought, between two assertions of his righteousness/inno

cence (9:15, 21), Job says (9:16-17):

If I called and Heansweredme,

I could not believe that He was listening to my voice.

For He bruises me with a tempest

And multiplies my woundswithout cause (hinnmcf. 1:9; 2:3).

Thus the LORD himself has, unknown to Job or the friends, but known to

the reader, affirmed that Job's words in 9:17 are quite right. He has ruined Job

withoutcause.God affirms that Job has spoken "of me what is right" (42:7-8).

Interestingly, the only other occurrence of the word is found on the lips of

Eliphaz at 22:6 in a speech (w. 1-6) that has a number of verbal connections

with both the LORD's initial description of Job and his final questioning of

Job.Eliphaz asks:

Is there any pleasure to the Almighty if you arerighteous (sdqcf. 40:8)

Or profit if you make your waysperfect? (tarncf. 1:1, 8; 2:3; 4:6; 8:20; 9:20-22 three

times)

Is it because of yourreverence (yr>)that Hereprovesyou(ykhcf. 1:1,8;2:3;15:4;40:2

That He enters into judgment(misptcf. 40:8) against you?

Is not yourwickednessgreat (cf. 1:8; etc.turning awayfromevil),

And your iniquities without end?

Foryou have taken pledges of your brotherswithout cause(hinnm),

And stripped men naked.

In this speech Eliphaz moves from cruel misunderstanding to direct and

patently false accusations.

In 9:20b Job states, "Though I am guiltless, He will declare me guilty."

Taken on its own this statement would certainly appear to convict Job of the

charge implied in God's question (40:8): "Will you condemn (rsc)Me that you

may be justified (sdq)?99

Taken in parallel with 9:20a, however, Job's words are

capable of a different construction altogether:

Though I amrighteous,my mouth will condemn me;

Though I am guiltless, He will declare me guilty.


11/16


For Heisnot a manasI am that I mayanswerHim,Thatwemaygoto court (mispt)together.

It cannot happen. Thus Job's suggesting that God would declare an innocentman guilty is not the raw accusation that the friends latch onto as grounds for

condemnation.

Eliphaz had begun his argument (4:7-8) by asserting that calamity falls upon

the wicked and blessings on the righteous because God is just, thus:

Remember now,whoeverperished being innocent?Orwherewere the upright destroyed?

Accordingtowhat I have seen,thosewhoplow iniquityAnd thosewho sowtrouble harvest it.

Bildad's speech has basically been an argument that calamity would never

have come upon Job or his children without just cause in something they had

done to deserve it (Job8).Job responds (9:22-24):

Itisallone;therefore I say,"He destroys the guiltless and the wicked."

If the scourge kills suddenly,He mocks the despair of the innocent.The earthisgiven into the hand of the wicked;He covers the faces of its judges.If itisnotHe,thenwhois it?

Here, then, Job points to the reality of the suffering of the righteous, including

natural disaster and the wickedness of corrupt officials, and poses the question,

"If itisnotHe,then whoisit?"This same sentimentisrepeated in10:3.In other

words, Godissovereign over a world where the righteous suffer and where justice

doesnot appeartobe being done. God appearstobe "mocking the despair of the

innocent." Withthis,Godisnot in disagreement(2:3).Job's description of reality

is true. The friends by contrast are affirming a fantasy (4:7).

Job notes the passage of time and sees his death as approaching (9:25-26). He

sees no hope in resolving matters with God because he can see no way that the

creature could appear before the Creator to do so (9:27). In such circumstances

he sees no hope of acquittal: "I know that you will not acquit me" (9:28a; cf.

10:14).There is nothing he can do (9:29). In words found alsoinJer 2:22, Job

points out that a man cannot wash away his own sins (Job 9:30-31; 14:4). Indifferent words this same assertion is repeated (10:16-17), and for the same rea


12/16


Iama joketo myfriends.

Theone whocalledonGod,andHe answered him;

thejustandblamelessman isa joke. (12:4)

The exact opposite of the friends' concept of God's just governance (cf.

15:17-35;18:5-21 ;20:4-29) is all around(12:6).Evenfishknow that all of this is

God's doing (12:7-9; cf. 1:21; 21:7-34). God is sovereign (12:10) and there is no

escaping that he has orderedJob'ssuffering. Job then begins his own "cosmic

tour" illustrating the Creator-creature distinction (12:13-25), only his tour

takes in a range of human authorities who all find themselves subject to God's

judgment and purposes. Human prosperity and power come and go at the will

of God alone.

Inthis Jobis affirming what both he and the friends would agree is the nne

qua nonof the whole issue: Godissovereign. What happensisonlyby hisdecree

The friends claim that everything that happens to people is God's response to

their sinorvirtue.Jobsays theyaremaligning Godbyproposingsucha mecha

nistic understanding (13:7-12). OrisGod partial to some and not others? If the

goodareblessed and the wicked punished, why, heasks,aren'thisfriends sitting

in the dust next to him?? This is sarcasm.In the clearest terms Job states(19:6):"Knowthenthat Godhaswrongedme."

The word hereisciwtanip.When usedwitha person as the direct object, as here,

it means topervertjusticeordefraud(cf. Ps 119:78; Lam 3:36). Earlier Bildad had

accused Job of saying justthis(cf. 8:3). LaterElihuwill defend God against such

a charge (34:12). Job here certainly seems tobejustifying Bildad's charge and

laying the basis for the LORD's. Clines argues that Job here is accusing God of

destroyinghisreputationandpublicly brandinghim as asinnerin the eyesof his

friends.5Theyhaveinsultedhimand dealt harshly withhim(19:3).If they launch

themselves againsthim and win their day incourt (19:5) Job still defies them and

says that he is innocent (19:6). If their case against him is successful it will be

because God has so orderedit.Ifthat wereto happen, God will have subverted

Job.Thisisthe hypothetical outcomein aconditional sentence(Hm... ^pif. ..

then).CertainlythenetisclosinginonJobandhisenemiesareadvancing (19:6b-

19).In such circumstances he calls for pity (19:21) and looks to his Redeemer

(19:25-27),certain thatifthecondition put forward inv.6 were to befulfilled, the

friends who won the day would bring down on themselves God's wrath. Thus,

within the overall argument of the speech Job is saying that this hypothetical


13/16


Charge #6. Job 38:4-39:30; 40:9-41:34

The Creator-creature distinction is applied.

The most dominant theme presented in the LORD's speechesishis extended

assertion of the distinction that exists between the Creator and his creature. No

man can hold the Creator to account for his actions. In two series of questions,

fired as if from a machine gun, Yahweh calls upon Job, andallwho hear him, to

acknowledge that only God the Creator can do or know these things.

This mode of asserting the Creator-creature distinction is not new to the

Book of Job, except for the fact that here it is the LORD himself who is con

ducting the interrogative tour of the cosmos to make the point.Earlier Zophar had, in a shorter version, attempted to make the same point

to Job in the same way(11:7-9),as had Eliphaz (15:7-8) (see also 22:12-20), and

Bildad (ch. 25).

Later Job replied to Zophar with the question that God finally addresses to

Job:

Can anyone teach Godknowledge(yelammeddcat),

In thatHejudges (yispat)those on high? (21:22) (cf. #5 above)

And in an extended speech to Bildad (26:5-14) Job employs extensive ironic

polemic against Canaanite cosmology (cf. Behemoth and Leviathan in Job

40-41) to stress how little we know of God.

Elihu's delivery of this theme is almost as prolonged as the LORD's (35:5-8;

36:22-37:24) and bears striking similarity to the "Comforter" of Isa 40, who

prepares the way of the LORD in the wilderness. Like Elihu, Isaiah's Comforter

addresses the LORD's suffering people in exile, respondingtotheircriesthat the

LORD has forgotten them and disregarded their cause (Isa 40:27). The Com

forter in Isaiah comes to attend to his lost and exiled people and carry them

gendy home. He then fires off a tirade of questions (Isa 40:12-31) to remind

God's people that heisfaithful whether they understand how or why ornot.God

is not answerable to his creatures. In a context where the command is given to

"Comfort, comfort my people"(nhmcf. Job 42:6) the prophet points to their lack

of knowledge (Isa40:21,28). He asks (40:27):

Whydoyousay,OJacob,and assert, O Israel,"Myway ishiddenfrom the LORD,And the justice due me escapes the notice of my God?" (cf charge #1)


14/16


Agur the son of Jakeh delivers a similar message, laced with something of the

same sarcasm that we find on Job's lips (Prov 30:1-6):

The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, the oracle.The man declares to Ithiel, to Ithiel and Ucal:

Surely I am more stupid than any man,

And I do not have the understanding of a man. (cf. Job 12:2)

Neither have I learned wisdom,

Nor do I have the knowledge of the Holy One.

Who has ascended into heaven and descended?

Who has gathered the wind in His fists?

Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?

Who has established all the ends of the earth?

What is His name or His son's name?

Surely you know! (cf. Job 38:5, 18, 21, 33)

Every word of God is tested;

He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.

Do not add to His words (cf. Job 6:10)

Or He will reprove you,

and you will be proved a liar.

Paul delivers a similar reminder in Rom 9:19-21:

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"On

the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God(ho antapokrinomenos

theo)?The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this,"

willit?Or does not the potter have arightover the clay, to make from the same lump

one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

The natural and logical questions expressed in Rom 9:19 are answered by

putting any person who questions God in their place. In Rom 9 the person is

questioning the justice of God's election of some to mercy and others to "hard

ening." The implication is that the appropriate response is silent acceptance.

The creature does notanswer back toGod (9:20). The same word(antapokrithmai)

occurs in Luke 14:6 where Jesus silences the Pharisees and experts in the law.

Interestingly, the word only occurs twice in the LXX, both times inJob.In Job

16:8 it is used to translate the phrase (bepnayya

caneh= toanswerin myface).At

32:12,Elihu asserts:

Indeed, there was no one whorefuted (ykh=elengchon)Job,

Not one of you whoanswered(cnh=antapokrinomenos)his words.

I J b 40 2 i h th ll li f kh ( l h )


15/16


One implication of the Creator-creature distinction as presented by the

LORD in Job38-41maybe, therefore,torebuke the mechanistic understanding

that made God's blessings and curses absolutely contingent upon the creature's

behavior, thus placing God under obligation to man. God's right, and the justice

of that right, to initiate Job's trial, is what is being asserted. For God to explain

thistoJob or to the friends would be to deny this very assertion. Thus, only the

readerthe targeted audiencewill have the background information neces

sary to understand. God here then is seen to be teaching the reader, while not

being held to account by the creature.

Conclusion

On this analysis, God has appeared, as requested byJob.In his address to

Job he has presented the charges that the friends have made against Job.

The introductorywordsof the LORD's opening address to Job, "Who is this

who"(Job 38:2) may be read in two ways. Either what follows constitutes the

LORD's charges against Job, or they are a citation of charges laid by others and

brought to the LORD's attention. These words ("Whoisthis who") would meet

Fox's criteria for identifying an "attributed quotation," being "an explicit verb

of speaking or thinking."

6

He also notes the occurrence, particularly in poetry,of "functional ambiguity." The difficulty lies in establishing some objective

control lest it "become an all-purpose tool for artificial elimination of difficul

ties."7 He therefore suggests that the control needed in identifying functional

ambiguity is the context. In the narrower context of Job 38-42, this ambiguity

appears to be a deliberate dramatic device designed to heighten the impact of

the climax in 42:7-11 when Job is vindicated.

At the heart of the confusion governing the debates lies the shocking

realitya reality revealed to the reader in the opening narrativethat God

did, in fact, inflict harm on Jobwithoutcause.Job has asserted this to be the casebased only on his firm belief that God has declared him righteous and that he

has done nothing that would give grounds for God to so afflict him. In the ears

of the friends such assertions could only be understood to imply that God had

acted unjustly. If, in fact, God's treatment of Job was unjust in this sense, then at

Job 2:3 God himself pleaded guilty to the charge. What Job and the friends do

not know, however, is that God had set this up to be a test not so much of Job's

integrity, but of the integrity of God's dealings with men whereby a man could

be declared righteous and blameless before God and his loyalty to God have itsown integrity without being a simple exchange of compliance for prosperity.

Th t d ti f th C t t di ti ti b ll id t


16/16

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

WHO IS THIS WHO DARKENS COUNSEL - DAVID R. JACKSON La ironia retorica en los discursos de Job.pdf