A key, if not the key, to understanding the purpose and arrangement of the book of Job is the concept of divine justice.¹ The legal pattern of Job is critical to the understanding of its message. The primary Hebrew word employed by the writer(s) to denote justice is mishpat.² While it is common to all the participants except Zophar³, it is used with a variety of nuances that help to document the development of the book's ideas about God's involvement with Job's sufferings and the shifting of Job's own attitude toward his suffering. 

When the various components of this book are analyzed it becomes quite clear that the issue of this book is the suffering of righteous Job. The critical word here is righteous. The issue is not simply suffering, but suffering that is non-retributory. While deserved suffering presents a problem, it is entirely different from the suffering under consideration in this book. In fact, this is the very reason why the comforters are at least ineffective and at most offensive in their presentations. They have chosen to eliminate the critical word righteous in their treatment of Job, and thus their retributory explanation is inappropriate and is unequivocally rejected. 

When the word non-retributory is appropriately emphasized, the centrality of divine justice in this book becomes more apparent. There must be some reconciliation between divine justice and this undeserved suffering. While, as noted above, the comforters deny any tension here, Job is acutely aware of it and seeks an answer. It is to this answer that the book moves. 

While the Prologue indicates that Job is being tested and thus focuses on his suffering and reaction, the Dialogue shows that in reality it is God who is on trial, and it zeroes in on his nature and his relationship to the world.⁴ Ultimately it is not Job's integrity that is being tested, but God's integrity. Can God indeed be said to exercise mishpat? God's reputation is more at stake in this book than Job's but they are so interwoven that they cannot essentially be separated. 

Thus, even though some have denied it,⁵ there is an effort in this book to arrive at a theodicy,⁶ that is, a vindication of the justice of God. This is not to deny the importance of the issue of disinterested religion⁷ or to minimize the significance of the personal revelatory encounter that Job experienced at the end of the book.⁸ These elements are crucial and critical but not comprehensive in themselves. Since the writer poses and tolerates the question of theodicy, it is only reasonable to expect him to move to an answer. As Tsevat observes: "The Book of Job without an answer to its problem would constitute a literary torso, an anthology of verbalized doubts; it would betray an utter lack of appreciation of the controlling conceptions which are everywhere in evidence in the work . . . . "⁹

 Not only does the idea of divine justice enable us to understand the purpose of this book, but it also casts considerable light upon the complex arrangement of this book. Scholars in general question the unity of Job, seeing it as the product of several stages of development. The poetic exchanges between Job and the three comforters (chaps. 4-31) are seen as an addition to the original prose story about Job. The Elihu pericope (chaps. 32-37) is considered not only late, but also inferior and extraneous. The three major poems on wisdom (28:1-28), on Behemoth (40:15-24), and on Leviathan (41:1-34) are considered late and only loosely attached. The Yahweh speeches (chaps. 38-41) are seen by some as a late addition that obscures the meaning of the book.¹⁰

 While the development of the book is not crucial to this paper, the arrangement of the book is. Granted that there have been several stages of development, the final arrangement as we now have it is not the product of chance or confusion. This is not to deny the problems associated with structure or to dismiss consideration of them. Rather, it is to argue that in its present form, the book reflects a scheme and builds to a climax. This paper seeks to show that the issue of divine justice is a cohesive factor and that, by noting it throughout the succeeding sections of the book, a plan and pattern will emerge.

The Prologue: Divine Justice Unquestioned

While the Hebrew word mishpat is not found in this section, the issue of divine justice is raised. Though the first two chapters present Job as just,¹¹ they make no such claim for God. In fact, the details of God's dealings with satan, his willingness to accede to Job's suffering, and his inclination to protect his own interests while seemingly reducing Job to an expendable pawn, raise serious questions about divine justice. Job, necessarily oblivious of these details, seems to assume that God is just in all that he does.¹² This seems to be the intent of his well-known utterances in these chapters: "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away." (1:21) and "Shall we receive good at the hand of God and shall we not receive evil?" (2:10).

Even more important in this narrative section are the significant points that the writer establishes about God, the world, and Job. These are foundational and critical to the subsequent considerations of God's justice in the book.

God Is Presented as Sovereign

In the opening chapters God presides over the nameless angels¹³ who "present themselves," that is, literally 'stand over', as servants before the seated master.¹⁴ Obviously, God is not one of them but is clearly distinct from and over the angels. Though not called a son of God, satan is among them. He challenges the disinterest of Job's religion but cannot take any action until authorized by God. It is God who allows Job to suffer. This is clear to the reader, but not to Job, for obvious reasons. Nowhere other than here in the Prologue is satan referred to in the book. When Job speaks of his suffering he invariably assigns it to God.

The above observations are critical to the question of divine justice. The absence of other gods (polytheism) and of an evil being equal to God (dualism) immediately eliminates these as possible explanations for Job's sufferings. The exclusivity of Yahweh results here as elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible in his being the effective force in all matters.

Since the singularity of God should have meant coherence and consistency of purpose, issues arose in monotheism that would not have been found in polytheism. As Gottwald observes:

 In the ancient Near East, various aspects of power, justice, and mercy can be exhibited in one or another deity, emphasizing now this or now that attribute or activity and even uniting them momentarily in one deity in formal analogy with Yahweh, without necessarily bringing to the fore the question of how the sum total of divine manifestations exhibit the attributes and purposes of a single god pushes the question of the coherence of what is revealed farther into the foreground of communal consciousness. On the other hand, this means a heightened sense within the Israelite society of being confronted by a consistently purposing and revealing god; and on the other hand it means that serious problems of theological comprehension and of communal praxis and self-understanding are provoked in Israel when there is a prolonged absence of divine manifestations where they are expected, or when natural and historic-social developments unexpectedly contradict the understood purposes and attributes of deity. This opens the road to that consuming passion for theodicy.¹⁵

God Is Seen as Active in the World

Not only does God know what is happening on earth (1:8), he is keenly interested, taking pleasure in Job's commitment. In fact, it is this awareness and satisfaction that leads to the wager.

Throughout the poetic dialogue, Job is aware of the divine activity. He states that God has zeroed in on him, creating his suffering. Nowhere is this better observed than in 7:17-18, where Job expresses a parody of Ps 8:4. The psalmist is honored by God's attention; Job is distressed by it. Job argues that God makes too much of man, devoting too much attention to him.

The fact that God permits satan to function in the world also reflects his involvement with the world. Clearly, in the mind of the writer(s) God has not absented himself, he has not abdicated. Having created the world and being responsible for its management, he takes the world seriously. While he has a responsibility to the world of nature and animals, his primary concern is man.¹⁶ His relationship is not so much with the land as it is with man.¹⁷

The emphasis here in Job as in other wisdom literature is upon this world, the world of the here and now, the world of the living. This is where the struggle is and this is where the resolution will be realized. No appeal is made to an afterlife, hence the inclusion of the epilogue where the sufferings of Job are relieved and his fortune and family restored.

The above observations relative to God's involvement with the world are critical to the question of divine justice. There is no tendency in Job toward deism. In contrast to Psalm 14, where the fool does not sense any need to reckon with God and where God for all practical purposes does not matter, the book of Job clearly reflects an active God who is responsible for the events that happen. This involvement intensifies the issue of divine justice.

Job Is Presented as Righteous

While space does not permit a detailed consideration of Job's righteousness, the fact of it is quite apparent. Even a casual reading of the text will show it. His goodness is described in universal terms. He was blameless ('complete') and upright ('straight'). These two words used together indicate thorough rectitude.¹⁸ The third quality ('feared God') suggests that Job was religious, devout. The final quality ('shunned evil') indicates a deliberate rejection of evil and thus means 'moral'.

So critical is Job's righteousness that the writer presents it in the opening verse of the book, then has God attest to it (1:8, 2:3), and also the wife of Job (2:9). Even satan does not challenge it. The significance of this has already been noted. If Job can be shown to deserve his sufferings, as his friends insist, the book loses its meaning and purpose. In the words of Andersen: "The book of Job loses its point if the righteousness of Job is not taken as genuine." ¹⁹

The Presentation of the Comforters: Divine Justice Sustained

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, well steeped in conventional theology,²⁰ insist that God has given Job exactly what he deserves. When they use mishpat, they clearly have in mind moral recompense. They explain Job's sufferings by a cause and effect relationship, beginning with the effect, from which they deduce the cause. To them the issue is not God's integrity, but Job's sins. Suffering does not happen unless sin has been committed. Job's extreme suffering indicates commensurate sin on his part.

Neither Job nor his friends were aware of the events described in the Prologue. While insisting on his righteousness, Job did not know that God considered him righteous. The comforters, on the other hand, deny Job's righteousness, also not knowing that God reckoned Job righteous. The wager between God and satan had to be kept from Job in particular for the proposed test to be valid. Given the assessment of Job's character found in the Prologue, the comforters with their traditional theology, are at best straw men. Their ideas are de facto dismissed before they are given, but since they represent the orthodox view on suffering, they are granted opportunity to speak.

The causal relationship enables the comforters to assume Job's guilt from his suffering. In the words of Eliphaz: "Think now, who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and so trouble reap the same" (4:7-8). Job's sufferings are clear evidence that he is guilty of sin, even as his children's deaths are proof of their sin (8:4).

While the comforters are initially content to sustain Job's guilt by virtue of his suffering, they are forced finally to catalog his sins. While Job at one time probably shared a common theological position with his friends, his recent experiences caused him to reassess his theology. As a result, the friends' contention of his guilt based upon his suffering is not convincing to Job. This leads to the listing of Job's sins by Eliphaz (22:6-9).

Not only are these charges denied by the writer, who labels Job "upright," but they will also be refuted by Job himself (31:16, 17, 19). Job's innocence must be maintained if the purpose of the book is to be realized, but in the process, the issue of divine justice is intensified.

The Protestation of Job: God's Justice Questioned and Challenged

Job's challenge and appeal to God for clarification of the nature of divine justice is not novel. Abraham, too, was concerned with divine justice, asking relative to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah" "Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? . . . Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked! Far be it from thee! Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen 18:23, 25). Abimilech, following his abortive relationship with Sarah, cried out: "Lord, wilt thou slay an innocent people? . . . . in the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands have I done this" (Gen 20:4, 5). The judgment ("you are a dead man") seemed unjust to Abimilech, who had been misled by Abraham. Habakkuk struggled with Babylon's success, questioning: "Thou who art of purer eyes than to behold evil and canst not look on wrong, why dost thou look on faithless men, and art silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?" (1:13). He concluded, "The law is slaked and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous, so justice goes forth perverted" (1:4).

Desiring justice, Job wants to enter into litigation with God, but senses the impossibility of this, because God is "not a man" as he is.²² Given his background, his functioning in the judicial system of his community (15:7, 29:12, 31:31), it is not surprising that he would consider litigation. While at first this seems impossible, his continued suffering and the repetitious charges of his friends necessitate such a move. He finally identifies God as his opponent (13:3) and states that he has prepared his mishpat -- his case (13:18).²³

God's response to Job's challenge is not immediate. No litigation results, even though he has pressed charges against God (19:7). In particular, he has charged God with hamas, a technical word for wrongdoing. In Prov 4:17 this word refers to that which has been secured by illegal means. Thus Job may be charging God with unlawful seizure of his property.²⁴ This legal procedure would cast Job in the role of plaintiff and God in the role of defendant.

So far in our consideration of Job's pursuit for divine justice, our legal metaphor has seen Job as the plaintiff and God as the defendant. This is indeed the interpretation followed by many scholars.²⁵ But, as Dick cautions, we need to be careful "in sharply delineating the roles of plaintiff and defendant, for ancient documents are often unclear in distinguishing these relationships, and a too rigid imposition of this modern distinction might be anachronistic."²⁶

Further complicating the issue is the fact that God is involved and alternately assumes different roles. This can be demonstrated by Job's desire for an umpire (9:33), ²⁷ a witness,²⁸ and a vindicator (19:25).²⁹ God seems to be designated by all these terms. Even though Job knows that God is also the accuser, the judge, and the executioner, he nevertheless appeals to God and thus is appealing from God to God.³⁰

Granted these difficulties, Dick is nevertheless correct in seeing Job also cast in the role of defendant. ³¹ Job's speeches indicate that he believes God has developed a case against and found him guilty. He has already been judged in some previous unaccountable and unannounced juridical proceeding. There is simply no other way for him to account for his losses than to recognize them as punishment.

The comforters also understandably see Job in the role of the defendant. They too believe that Job has already been judged and found guilty. While Job struggles with this verdict, the comforters are convinced that justice has been done (8:3). As has already been noted, Eliphaz in his concluding speech reminds Job of this divine litigation (22:3) and defends the verdict by itemizing Job's sins that led to this judgment (22:5-9).

Convinced of his innocence, Job demands a writ of particulars, suggesting that God has indicated proceedings against him. In 13:23 Job requests that the nature and number of charges against him be specified.³² He is convinced that he is not guilty of any crime (hamas, 16:7). But there is no response from the Lord (30:20).

The silence of the Lord drives Job to extreme action -- the use of the oath of clearance. In the world of the Old Testament, this oath was taken by the accused, but was only invoked after all rational means of proof had been exhausted.³³ The use of nonrational proof brought the deity into the process, which is precisely what Job wanted.³⁴

The very form of the oath of clearance indicates its terribleness: "If I did or shall do this, or if I did not or shall not do this, then may God punish me." Ordinarily ellipsis occurs, that is, the apodosis ("then may God punish me") is omitted. The reason for this is quite apparent: there was always the possibility of an unintentional factual inaccuracy. An inaccuracy could set in motion the mechanism of punishment for perjury that the oath envisages. Caution truncated the oath, but Job was so desperate that he threw caution to the wind and frequently included the apodosis (31:8, 10, 22, 40).

In this same chapter, with these oaths of clearance, Job registers his formal request for a writ of particulars: "Oh, that I had one to hear me! Here is my signature! Let the almighty answer me! O that I had the indictment written by my adversary" (31:35)! Dick sees this request as legal appeal of a defendant for a formal hearing through the assemblage of a tripartite judicial board. The "one to hear" Dick identifies as the judge, the "adversary" as God, thus casting Job as the defendant.³⁵ The role of the judge here is to force the adversary to produce written charges.³⁶ Job wants to know what his crime is. He believes that he will be able to prove his innocence (31:36-37).

In his desperation, Job not only used the oath of clearance, but he also employed the institution of the hue and cry (vox oppressorum, Ps 30:9-10). This was a basic cry for justice and assistance by the dispossessed and oppressed. Anyone hearing such a cry was obligated to respond. Job made such a cry, obviously wanting a divine response: "O earth, cover not my blood, and let my cry find no resting place" (16:18). Job must have had in mind the phrase in Gen. 4:10: "The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground."

All of Job's legal efforts indicate the centrality of divine justice in this book.

The Adjudication of Elihu: Divine Justice Qualified

The role of Elihu in this book is difficult. He appears abruptly, makes his presentation, with no reply from Job, and then just as abruptly disappears. No reference is made to him in the Prologue or Epilogue. His speeches (chaps. 32-37) could be removed from the book without being missed. Following Job's employment of the oath of clearance, as noted above, one would have expected the response of Yahweh to follow immediately. The source and purpose of these chapters are therefore understandably debated.

Perhaps Elihu should not be cast in the role of a protagonist, but rather in the role of adjudicator.³⁷ He begins with his assessment of the comforters' arguments -- "there was none that confuted Job" (32:12) -- and subsequently says of Job: "Job speaks without knowledge, his words are without insight" (35:35). If Elihu is seen as the human adjudicator, then Yahweh could be viewed as the divine adjudicator. Note his assessment of the dialogue: "You (comforters) have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has" (42:7).

Elihu shows great awareness of the previous speeches. In contrast to the other participants, who only occasionally refer to previously spoken words, Elihu freely quotes from and alludes to the earlier speeches.³⁸ His remarks can be seen as a commentary on the earlier presentations.

More significantly for this paper, Elihu seems to play a pivotal role in the understanding of divine justice. He will go beyond the comforters and Job in his treatment of divine justice but will fall short of Yahweh's explanation. His purpose is to serve as a transition between the traditional explanation of divine justice and the authentic one given by Yahweh himself.

As Scholnick observes, Elihu will use the word mishpat as a judicial term in three different ways: like Job, as 'litigation' (32:9) and 'case' (34:4-6; 35:2), and like the comforters, as 'moral recompense' (34:12).³⁹ He will assess Job's case, noting the key arguments that Job has advanced (33:9-11, 34:5-6, 35:2).

He notes Job's forensic language⁴⁰ but insists that God cannot be subject to litigation (34:23). Rather, God administers justice through a system of moral retribution. This is done without warning and investigation (34:24). God simply does not hold public sessions of judgment, as Job would have liked (24:1).

Elihu concludes his speeches with a picture of God as sovereign ruler of nature (36:24-37:24). Here he senses that God is not simply judge, but also sovereign: "The Almighty -- we cannot find him; he is great in power and justice" (37:23). He associates mishpat with the idea of power (koah). This is the first time this happens in the book.⁴¹ God must not be simply viewed as a judge, but must also be seen as sovereign king. Mishpat is not simply jurisprudence; it is also sovereignty. Divine justice cannot be treated apart from divine sovereignty.

The Adjudication of Yahweh: Divine Justice Explained

The issue of divine justice is a critical issue in the Yahweh speeches at the end of the book. Failure to recognize this has resulted in charges that these chapters are at best irrelevant to the suffering of Job and to the book itself. To be sure, these chapters do not provide Job with the bill of particulars that he had demanded. Nor to they provide him opportunity to question Yahweh. Earlier Job had requested: "Then call, and I will answer; or let me speak and do thou reply to me" (13:22). Such a choice was not available to him. Yahweh did all the questioning.

The legal nature of this divine encounter is stressed at the beginning of both speeches: "Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me" (38:3, 40:7). Even as Jeremiah had been instructed to gird up his loins (Jer 1:17) in preparation for legal encounter with Israel, so now Job is told to ready himself for a legal encounter with Yahweh. "To gird up the loins" may be an idiom for the belt-wrestling ordeal, which was used at Nuzi for settlement of a case where there was conflicting testimony.⁴²

In these speeches Yahweh refers to mishpat only once (40:8), but the concept of divine justice is clearly central to these speeches. This has been the issue of the book and here in its culmination it does not seem likely that it would be ignored. What then does Yahweh say about divine justice? Three positions, not radically different from one another, will be considered.

He Denies Justice⁴³

Tsevat claims that the speeches of Yahweh demonstrate that "no retribution is provided for in the blueprint of the world, nor does it exist anywhere in it. None is planned for in the nonhuman world. Divine justice is not an element of reality. It is a figment existing only in the misguided philosophy with which you have been inculcated. The world in which you and the friends are spun is a dream. Wake up, Job!"⁴⁴

Tsevat reasons that once the principle of quid pro quo is rejected, once the idea of the possibility of justice is given up, the issue of injustice disappears, because injustice can only exist when justice is possible."⁴⁵

Tsevat summarizes his position by imagining an equilateral triangle at the vertexes of which we have G (God), J (Job), and R (Retribution). The book of Job tells us that we cannot maintain these ideas simultaneously. In fact, the purpose of the book is to show that from necessity one of the three will have to be eliminated.⁴⁶

The friends maintain G and R, while eliminating J. Job is inclined to give up G while keeping J and R.⁴⁷ God retained G and J, but he eliminated R. God denies the truth of retribution in nature, in extra-societal situations. Note Tsevat's words:

But the Book of Job does more than demythologize the world; it also "demoralizes" it, which is to say, makes it amoral. It completes the process whose first phase is known to the reader of the Bible from the opening pages of Genesis: the removal from the conceptual world of an order of superhuman beings independent of the Deity. And it extends it by the denial of the realization of moral values -- values deriving from the Deity, to be sure -- other than realization effected by man. This new world is as harsh as it is simple, for in it man is deprived of the protection he enjoyed in a world saturated with myth and morality and populated with powers to which he might turn with a view to rendering them favorable to his well-being, foremost by his leading of a meritorious life.⁴⁸

He Redefines Justice

This position, particularly as advanced by Buber, stresses differences between human justice and divine justice:

 Not the divine justice, which remains hidden, but a divine justice, namely that manifest in creation. The creation of the world is justice, not a recompensing and compensating justice, but a distributing, a giving justice. God the Creator bestows upon each what belongs to him, upon each thing and being, in so far as he allows it to become entirely itself . . . . The just Creator gives to all His creatures His boundary, so that each may become fully itself. Designedly man is lacking in this presentation of heaven and earth, in which man is shown the justice that is greater than his, and is shown that he with his justice, which intends to give to everyone what is due to him, is called only to emulate the divine justice, which gives to everyone what he is.⁴⁹

 Von Rad's approach is similar in that he maintains that God can root justice where he pleases:

 It is not as if God were bound to some norm of right, so that there was, as it were, an umpire who, in case of a dispute between God and man, could engage both to observe the rule (Job 11:32f.). JAHWEH is so full and powerful that he himself determines what is right, and is always in the right against man.⁵⁰

A serious problem with this position is the definition of justice as that which is freely and appropriately given. Generosity is not normally understood as the definition of justice, particularly not when it comes to large doses of suffering. Von Rad and Buber have sought to retain divine justice, but by means of a definition not normally accepted.

He expands Justice

Scholnick's position is not too radically different from the above positions. Her mains stress is that divine justice is not limited to jurisprudence, but also includes sovereignty:

Yahweh's appearance before the hero and his friends signals his acceptance of the challenge for litigation. But in his testimony, rather than pressing charges or presenting a defense, God focuses on the more fundamental question of the nature of divine justice. Excluding any mention of man's system of justice through litigation, he speaks instead of his own authority over the universe, which he labels mishpat in 40:8. His concern for Job is expressed through teaching him that justice goes beyond the human legal system to include a system of divine kingship.⁵¹

Scholnick, while recognizing that the majority of the occurrences of the root shpt in the Hebrew Bible fall into the forensic category, notes that there are many that refer to governance, such as the reference to the king in 1 Sam 8:9.⁵² Here the jurisdiction of the king allows him to draft, to enslave, and to appropriate property.

While the writer of Job uses both meanings for mishpat, in the speeches of Yahweh the emphasis is clearly upon sovereignty. This accounts for his treatment of nature. Yahweh is the creator and the sustainer of nature. He is indeed the Ruler of the World. Thus he rebukes Job for challenging his mishpat, his sovereignty: "Will you even put me in the wrong? Will you condemn me that you may be justified?" (40:8).

Like the monarch described in 1 Sam 8:10-15, Yahweh has the right to appropriate property as he chooses, without consulting the owner. Such appropriations need not be seen as punishment. Yahweh is suggesting to Job that his loss of wealth, family, and health is not divine punishment, but divine appropriation.

Job's Response: Divine Justice Accepted

An assessment of Job's response to Yahweh's speeches is pertinent to our consideration.

Curtis, moving backward from Job's response to the speeches of Yahweh, also sees an emphasis on sovereignty in Yahweh's presentation. In fact, he sees such an emphasis on the divine prerogative here that he reasons that Job has no choice other than to reject Yahweh. Curtis rejects the traditional translation of 42:6, rendering it: "Therefore I feel loathing, contempt, and revulsion toward you, O God; and I am sorry for frail man."⁵³ Job simply cannot accept Yahweh's unlimited and unanswerable power. The speeches of Yahweh do not solve, but rather compound Job's problem.

While some of Curtis's linguistic arguments in 42:6 are compelling, his conclusion requires him to deny unity to the book. He goes so far as to argue that the prose sections not only give the setting of events and provide a happy ending, but that they have been added to deliberately mislead the reader. The Epilogue, with its accepted ending and divine approbation of Job, intentionally conceals Job's decisive rejection of Yahweh.⁵⁴ This tension between the poetic and prose sections should not be resolved by adjusting the poetic conclusions to those of the prose. While this suggestion may be valid, it is not necessary.

Job does not reject God but rather rejects his efforts at litigation. The root nhm, translated 'repent', has a forensic use in prophetic lawsuit literature and can mean 'retract' (cf. Jer 15:6). Cyrus Gordon suggests that nhm in 42:6 may be used "apparently in the sense of a judge retracting and lightening is decision."⁵⁵ Job thus now may be rejecting some of his earlier comments and his insistence on litigation.

The hero no longer wishes to continue his case when he realizes that there is a dimension of justice outside of the court which supersedes the purely forensic. . . . What Job learns is that the divinely ordained justice in the world is God's governance. Job speaks at the end of the drama, not as an innocent hero who rejects the divine Judge for improperly accusing him of wrong doing, but as an enlightened and humbled man who accepts an all-powerful King. His acceptance is based on a full understanding that mishpat integrates the ideas of human jurisprudence and divine sovereignty.⁵⁶

 

Conclusion

Divine justice is indeed a concern of each of the participants in this book. It is the issue that gave rise to the book and it is the unifying and cohesive factor around which the various sections have been organized. While the development and organization of this book is exceedingly complex, there is no need to deny a unified purpose that finds its center in divine justice.

Whether divine justice is defended (comforters), questioned/denied/accepted (Job in his various stages), or redefined (Elihu and Yahweh), it still remains the central issue of the book. These varied responses to divine justice show its centrality and cohesiveness, because all the participants feel a need to address it. Raised in the Prologue, the issue of divine justice dominates the entire book.

Endnotes

1. Sylvia H. Scholnick, "The Meaning of Mishpat In the Book of Job," JBL (1982) 521-29.

2. Other roots expressing a nuance of justice that are used in Job are: sdq, 19 times; yshr, 7 times; tmm, 16 times.

3. Eliphaz in 22:4; Bildad in 8:3; Job in 9:19, 32; 13:18; 14:3; 19:7; 23:4; 27:2;31:13; Elihu in 32:9;34:4, 5, 6, 12, 17, 23; 35:2; 36:6, 17; 37:23; Yahweh in 40:8.

4. David N. Freedman, "Is It Possible to Understand the Book of Job?" Bible Review 4/2 (April, 1988) 26-33, 44.

5. H. H. Rowley, Job (NCB; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980) 19. Cf. Samuel Terrien, Job, Poet of Existence (London: Nelson, 1957) 21.

6. The English word theodicy comes from two Greek words: theos ('God') and dike ('justice')

7. Terrien argues that the essential and primary question of Job is not theodicy, but true worship; Samuel Terrien, Job in IB (New York: Abingdon, 1954) 3.913-14.

8. Cf. George Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Abingdon, 1965) 334. Fohrer contends that the issue is not an explanation for undeserved sufferings but rather the question of how a sufferer should conduct himself. This interpretation has appeal and may be a secondary theme, but the whole book clearly struggles with the "why" of undeserved suffering.

9. Matitiahu Tsevat, The Meaning of the Book of Job (New York: KTAV, 1980) 80.

10. For a treatment of the stages in the development of this book, see Rowley, Job 8-18.

11. As will be noted shortly, Job is said to be yshr and tm. In these chapters, Job appears in a better light than God.

12. Job's assessment of God's activity in the Prologue may not have a judicial thrust as much as it has a sovereign one. The emphasis may not be so much forensic as it is executive. As Scholnick shows, God seems to emphasize this executive dimension in his speeches, but if this is the case, the book essentially begins where it ends and this negates the need for the lengthy poetic section ("Meaning of mishpat, 521).

13. Even the word satan here is probably more a designation than a name. His role or function is that of an accuser.

14. Rowley, Job, 31. Cf. marvin Pope, Job (AB 15: Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1973) 9. Pope suggests that the idea here is of angels positioning themselves as courtiers before a king.

15. Normal K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1979) 687. It needs to be noted that while the site of this book and the homes of the participants are not located in Israel, the writer(s) are reflecting an Israelite perspective. While the dating of Job is difficult, it probably was written during the time of the monarchy when, as Gottwald observes, the coherence of the divine manifestation was a problem. It was perhaps this climate that gave rise to this book.

16. In the Yahweh speeches it is noted that the Lord is creator of the earth 38:4-7), of the sea (38:8-11), and of time (38:12-15). He is the master of land and sky (38:16-38) and the protector of wild animals (38:39-39:30).

17. Gottwald, Tribes of Yahweh, 688. Never is God called the "God of Canaan" or "God of the land of Israel" or "God of the land of Judah" or the "God of Shechem" (or any other city).

18. Cf. Ps 25:21, 37:37; Prov 29:10.

19. Francis I Andersen, Job (TynOT; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1976) 66.

20. The deuteronomic idea of history was that the nation always got what it deserved (Deuteronomy 28). In Judges the nation is subjugated or delivered, depending upon its relationship to the Lord. This collective idea is individualized by Job's friends.

21. Andersen's claim that Job believes that God's justice is simply delayed, but not denied, is not very convincing (Job, 191).

22. Job 9:32. Here the idiom bo' bemishpat is used. While it literally means 'go to the place of judgment', it is better translated 'enter litigation' here. A similar meaning is found in Ps 143:2, where the possibility of appearing before God is accepted; Scholnick, "Meaning of mishpat," 524.

23. Here the word mishpat means 'case'. A similar use can be found in 23:4 ("I would lay my case before him"), in Num 27:5 ("Moses brought their [Daughters of Zelophehad] case before the Lord"), and in 2 Sam 15:4 ("Every man with a suit or case might come to me").

24. Scholnick, "Meaning of mishpat," 525.

25. Cf. B. Gemser, "The Rib or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality," Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East (VTSup 3; Leiden, Brill, 1955) 135.

26. Michael Brennan Dick, "The Legal Metaphor in Job 31," CBQ (1979) 37-50.

27. The term umpire is seen by some as a 'negotiator' or 'reconciler' who brings quarreling people together, one who would "lay his hand upon . . . both" as a common friend (Andersen, Job, 151). However, mokiah is better rendered 'arbiter' (KJV has archaic 'daysman'). When used with bin, as in Gen 31:37 (cf. Job 16:21), mokiah is a legal term and seems to refer to a judge. The location of the function of the mokiah "in the gate" demonstrates that its domain is in jus civile.

28. Here God is clearly referred to, because shed blood cries out to him (Gen 4:10).

29. While the term go'el designates the 'redeemer' and hence one who does not necessarily function within the court setting, when used of God it can suggest a defender of justice (Prov 23:10-11). Further, in the Job passage under discussion, the go'el is said to 'stand' (qum), suggesting a court setting (cf. Ps 1:5) where the witness stands to testify.

30. This appeal from God to God may reflect a struggle between two differing conceptions of God in Job's mind (Rowley, Job, 121).

31. Dick, "Legal Metaphor," 38.

32. The desire for precision can be seen in Job's use of three words for sin: 'awon, derived from the verb 'to err'; hata'at, a noun related to the verb meaning 'to miss the mark'; and pesha, from the verb meaning 'to rebel'.

33. There is no evidence in the Old Testament that a witness ever took an oath; Hans Jochen Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and the Ancient New East (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980) 85.

34. Given the nonrational character of the oath of clearance, it is not surprising to note that its provenance was the cult rather than the local court (Num 5:12-28). This does not mean that the trial became exclusively a cultic process. Rather, it is likely that the priests functioned in conjunction with the local court.

35. Dick, "Legal Metaphor," 48-49. Blank also argues that the oaths of clearance in this chapter can be seen as part of Job's formal petition; S. H. Blank, "An Effective Literary Device in Job XXXI," JJS (1951) 105-7.

36. In Hebrew trials the witnesses and the judge were not necessarily different people. This was also true of the plaintiff and judge. The accuser could function as judge and pronounce sentence on others (cf. Jeremiah 26). Boecker, Law and the Administration of Justice, 34-35.

37. Andersen, Job, 51.

38. D.N. Freedman, he Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job," HTR (1968) 51-59.

39. Scholnick, "Meaning of mishpat," 525.

40. He uses the idiom hlk bammishpat (34:23), which is similar to the one employed by Job, bw'bammishpat (9:32, 14:3).

41. Scholnick, "Meaning of mishpat," 526.

42. Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1949) 134. Cf. HUCA 23 (1950) 131-36.

43. Tsevat, Book of Job, 100. He notes that roots that express the idea of justice (sdq, yshr, tmm) are omitted in Job's journey through the world.

44. Ibid., 100.

45. Ibid., 98.

46. Ibid., 104-5.

47. Tsevat notes that Job was enmeshed in contradictions and, while he despairs of God, he never actually surrenders God.

48. Tsevat, Book of Job, 102.

49. Martin Buber, The Prophetic Faith (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949) 194-95.

50. Gerhard von Rad. Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962) 1.413.

51. Scholnick, "Meaning of mishpat," 521-22.

52. Ibid., 522.

53. John B. Curtis, "On Job's Response to Yahweh," JBL (1979) 498-511.

54. Ibid., 510.

55. Cyrus H. Gordon, Legal Background of Hebrew Thought and Literature (M.A. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1928).

56. Scholnick, "Meaning of mishpat," 529.

 Top

Return to Dr. Schultz's Links

 Houghton College Home Page

Email to cschultz@houghton.edu