Literary Features of the Book of Job

By Gregory W. Parsons

[Gregory W. Parsons, Professor of Biblical Studies, Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary, Jacksonville, Texas]

Literary Genre

The consensus that Job is a literary work of the highest magnitude does not make the task of classifying it with regard to its literary type any easier. Many literary critics have attempted to place the Book of Job into one overarching literary genre or category. However, this writer views all attempts to fit the book into one category as failing to do justice to the complex nature of its literary fabric.[1]

Suggestions as to the basic (or comprehensive) literary genre of Job normally have fallen into three major categories: the lawsuit (רִיב) which is a legal or judicial genre; the lament genre, which is frequent in the Psalms; or the controversy dialogue or dispute, which is similar to the wisdom genre of contest literature in the ancient Near East.

Basic Views

Lawsuit. Because of the occurrence of legal terminology in Job, many scholars have argued that the juridical sphere is the backdrop of the book.[2] Richter understands the Book of Job as a secular lawsuit by Job against God whereby the friends serve as witnesses (who apparently place a counter-suit against Job). Chapters 4–14 are viewed as a preliminary attempt at reconciliation out of court. and chapters 15–31 are seen as formal court proceedings between Job and the friends. The resumption of the case against Job by Elihu and the judgment of God (38:1–42:6) in the form of a secular counter-lawsuit between God and Job result in the withdrawal of the accusation by Job.[3]

Scholnick has presented a scholarly argument for viewing Job as a “lawsuit drama” whereby the man (Job) takes his opponent (God) to court. The issue of the legal guilt or innocence of the two parties involved is resolved through a lawsuit in which the friends are judges and witnesses.[4]

Lament. Although Westermann recognized the existence of a controversy dialogue in Job 4–27, he argued that the most important element in the book is the lament (the personal lament well known in the Psalms). The lament by Job, which begins (chap. 3) and ends (chaps. 29–31) the dialogue proper, completely encloses the controversy speeches.[5]

Gese suggested that the original “folk book” of Job, now allegedly extant only in the prose sections—the prologue, the epilogue, and in 3:1 and 38:1 —was a “paradigm of the answered lament” patterned after three Mesopotamian texts in which an answer of God came to the sufferer.[6] However, Gese argued that the author of Job changed the original intent of the “paradigm of the answered lament,” whose form he ironically employs, by substituting in the poetic sections a demand for a trial with God instead of the allegedly original plea for mercy.[7]

Controversy dialogue. Some scholars have proposed that Job is a variant of the philosophical dialogue, namely a controversy dialogue similar to the disputation or contest literature in the ancient Near East.[8] Although Crenshaw acknowledges that Job cannot be squeezed into one narrow genre, he considers the controversy dialogue, which is influenced by its function within prophetic literature as self-vindication, as the major literary type in the book.[9]

Conclusion

Three views which have been proposed to describe the comprehensive literary genre of the Book of Job have been cited. However, the realization that each of the three positions has at least some validity underlies the fact that none of them succeeds in adequately accounting for the diversified nature of this complex literary work.[10] As a matter of fact, the author of the Book of Job skillfully interwove at least three major literary genres into the fabric of his composition. Using the terminology of Lévêque, the author skillfully played from three different “keyboards”[11] in his polyphonic work—wisdom types, a genre from Psalms, and a genre from the legal sphere. Consequently it can be concluded that the Book of Job is a “mixed genre” in which its author expertly blended a variety of literary types in order to serve the function of the book.[12]

Literary Devices

Two key literary devices which are employed by the writer of Job are the usage of irony and of mythopoeic language. The present author will analyze the significant manner in which these two major literary devices are utilized to assist the development of the argument and purpose of the book. Also less important literary devices will be briefly noted.

Irony [13]

The Book of Job is truly a study in irony. Irony is a significant literary feature which saturates nearly every portion of the book.[14]

It is interesting that dramatic irony (similar to that used in Greek tragedy)[15] plays an important role in the basic format of Job. The readers and the heavenly court share the knowledge presented in the prologue, of which Job and his friends are not aware—namely, that Job is innocent of wrongdoing and is being tested as part of the cosmic purpose of God.

It is precisely because of the reader’s knowledge of Satan’s statement that God had put a protective hedge (שַׂכְתָּ) about Job (1:10), that the irony of Job’s words in 3:23 becomes evident. Job bemoans that God had placed a hedge around him (וַיָּסֶךְ)[16] so that he could not die. The very protective hedge which (although removed to a greater distance by God) prevents Job’s death (cf. 2:6) and which was intended for good is conceived of as a restrictive hedge intended for evil.[17] Job consciously speaks ironically about this “hedge” or security guard in 7:12. His question drips with irony as he asks God if he himself was so dangerous as the sea monster that he must be put under twenty-four-hour surveillance (vv. 17–20). In 13:27 Job again alludes to God’s guard being restrictive. It is ironic that Job (in 29:2) longed for the bygone days when Yahweh’s guard was a blessing rather than a restrictive hindrance.[18] It is this background which enables the reader to understand the full impact of the irony of the Lord’s words in 38:8 when He asks Job who hedged in the sea with doors (cf. 7:12). The Lord here uses the same verb—וַיָּסֶךְ—Job employed in 3:23.

The “comforting” friends make use of irony in a subtle attempt to prove that Job is wicked. Their words are aimed at the wicked man with whom they implicitly identify Job by means of verbal irony, whereby they twist Job’s words in an attempt to incriminate him.[19] For example, Eliphaz’s statements in 4:7–11 are an attempt to equate Job with the wicked man whose lot is trouble (עָמָל—cf. Job’s usage of the same word in 3:10, 20 to describe his own condition).[20] In 4:10–11 Eliphaz obliquely refers to Job’s “roar” (or “moaning,” cf. 3:24) as actually the roar and groan of a lion (as a symbol of the wicked)[21] whose cubs had been scattered and killed because of God’s anger.[22] However, a deeper irony (of which the reader is aware) overshadows this passage. Eliphazs question, “Were the upright ever destroyed?” (4:7b) which implies, according to the retribution dogma, that no upright person was ever destroyed, is disproved by the very fact that Job sits before him on the ash heap (cf. 1:1, 8; 2:3 where Job is designated יָשָׁר).[23] Rather than proving Job to be a sinner, Eliphaz displays his own naïve acceptance of an invalid dogma. This not only reinforces Job’s innocence in the eyes of the reader[24] but also emphasizes the absurdity of the retribution dogma. In similar fashion, Bildad’s possible ironic twisting of Job’s words (7:21) in 8:5 [25] rebounds against him by the deeper irony of Bildad’s own statements of 8:6 and 8:20.[26]

Job counters the ironic jibes of the friends with his own ironic remarks. In 12:2 Job retorts sarcastically (or perhaps satirically)[27] that his friends had such a monopoly on wisdom that wisdom would cease when they died. On the other hand he ironically states that what they say is common knowledge to all men (12:3c). Job says that he himself was not inferior to them in knowledge (12:3b and 13:2b). Beneath the irony of this retort and his statement “what you know, I also know” in 13:2a lies the deeper irony that the equality of their knowledge (especially with regard to the assumption of the retribution dogma) consisted of virtual ignorance of the Lord’s ways.[28] Once again Sophoclean irony reinforces the absurdity of the dogma of divine retribution. Here it also illustrates the futility of a “dialogue” between Job and the three friends and adumbrates the necessity for the divine perspective which comes in the Lord’s speeches.[29]

The usage of irony in the dialogue of Job, although especially frequent in the first cycle, occurs almost throughout the three cycles. For example, from the second cycle, Bildad in 18:4 reverses the meaning of Job’s words of 14:18 that the “rock is moved from its place.”[30] Then Bildad seemingly presents the simple orthodox view of the wicked and his fate (18:5–21). However, it is more likely “a masterpiece of irony” in which Bildad fits the words Job had already spoken about his own condition into the description of the wicked man’s fate.[31] Job, who apparently sensed the irony of Bildad’s words, responded in 19:2 by mocking Bildad’s introductory words of his last two speeches “how long?”).[32]

In the third cycle, for example, Eliphaz in 22:15–18 turns around Job’s quotation of the wicked man (21:14–16) to support his contention that Job has ironically fallen into the same path as wicked men of old (cf. Job’s statement in 7:19).[33] Consequently, Eliphaz counsels Job to put away his wickedness in order that his prosperity would be restored (22:22–30). He concludes by stating (in 22:30) that if Job would repent his prayers would once again become efficacious, not only for those who are innocent, but even for the guilty (those not innocent).[34] This would later find ironic fulfillment (in a way not envisioned by Eliphaz) when Job’s prayer for his three friends (including Eliphaz himself 42:8–10) was heard so that they, who were not innocent, were forgiven.[35] Again the reader is enabled to see the incongruity of the retribution dogma which Ellphaz champions.

Job’s words in 27:5–6, where he insists that he would cling to integrity and maintain his righteousness till death despite the allegations of his friends, bears ironic resemblance to the Lord’s analysis of Job in 2:3. The irony that results from the use of the word “integrity” (תֻּמָּה) causes the reader to wonder if the Lord would still describe Job in the same way after Job’s long and blasphemous attacks on God.[36] The usage of this literary device causes the reader to desire (and anticipate) the voice of God from the “whirlwind.”

There is a noticeable lessening of irony in chapters 29–31. Apart from the mild “self-irony” of 29:2[37] and 29:18–20, which contrasts Job’s former state with his present state (chap. 30), there is almost no irony either about God (cf. perhaps 31:3–4) or toward the friends. There maybe an “implied ironic slap” toward the friends in 29:25c (“like one who comforts mourners”).[38] This technique of “deironization” (which allegedly verifies the spurious nature of 29–31 )[39] is fitting for Job’s soliloquy in which he ignores the friends and turns his hopes toward God (though indirectly) in an almost hopeless “last-ditch” appeal for vindication. The brunt of the irony, which is directed toward Job, consists of a dual contrast—between his former expectations (chap. 29) and his present state, and between his earlier flagrant attacks on God and his present somber appeal for vindication. These contrasts are indicative of Job’s desperate situation and prepare the way for the Lord’s speeches.

The speeches of Elihu are particularly ironic (or even sarcastic) toward the friends for their failure to deal properly with Job (32:7, 9–11, 15–16). They also contain a few gently ironic utterances directed toward Job (cf. 34:33 and 37:17–20).[40] This may illustrate the somewhat neutral (or perhaps mediatorial) role of Elihu.

The Lord’s speeches (particularly the first) are permeated with obviously ironic remarks which border on sarcasm (38:4–5, 18, 21). However, they also contain more subtly ironic remarks. For example, the Lord’s usage of מוֹכִיחַ in 40:2 seems to be an implicit reference to Job’s hypothetical מוֹכִיחַ (9:33).41

Mythopoeic Language

The observant reader of the Book of Job is struck by the prevalence of mythopoeic language (the poetic usage of mythological allusions) which is perhaps more prominent in Job than in any other biblical book.[42] Smick has divided the mythological terminology into four categories: (1) the forces of nature (the fire, the sea, etc.), (2) “creatures cosmic or otherwise”, (3) cosmography; and (4) pagan cultic practices.[43] How do these various mythological allusions fit with an evangelical view of the origin and purpose of the Book of Job?[44]

The only reference to Smick’s last category occurs in Job 3:8 where Job calls for enchanters to curse the day (of his birth) by arousing Leviathan (presumably to swallow the sun).[45] (Thus the context supports the retention of יוֹם in the Masoretic text instead of its emendation to יָם [sea or the god Yamm]—a chaos force in Ugaritic as the counterpart of Leviathan, the sea monster.) However, there may indeed be a subtle play on the similar sound of יוֹם (“day”) and יָם (“sea”) and the parallel between Leviathan and Yamm in Ugaritic mythology.[46] Jobapparently employed “the most vivid and forceful proverbial language” available to him to emphasize the depths of his despair and the intensity of his anguish.[47] Because of Job’s clear statement of his monotheism (in 31:26–28), this mythological allusion (as well as others in the book)[48] should not be considered as indicative of Job’s belief in the validity of pagan cultic practices or of the existence of other deities.[49]

As a matter of fact, at least two passages where Job speaks contain possible polemical overtones. The first passage (9:5–13), which includes a host of mythological allusions,[50] emphasizes the sovereignty of the Lord over the sea[51] and the uniqueness of the Lord as the God who alone (לְבַדּוֹ) made the heavens, which are worshiped by pagans (9:8).[52] Also 9:7 makes it clear that it is the Lord, not a monster, who is the cause of the eclipse of the sun.[53] The sun (here denoted by חֶרֶס) is never referred to as ton שֶׁמֶשׁ54 by the man Job, which seems to be a conscious but subtle polemic against sun worship.[55]

The second passage, 26:5–14, also contains several mythological allusions.[56] However, the emphasis is clearly on the sovereignty of God over all the forces of nature. Verse 7 seems to contain a merism whereby the Lord’s creation of the north (probably the “heavens” or “skies”),[57] and His establishment of the earth upon nothing[58] indicate His total control of the universe (see vv. 8–14). Therefore verse 12 which refers to הַיָּם (the sea with definite article indicating not a proper name) seems to be at least an effort at “demythologizing,”[59] if not antimythical polemicizing.

In the speeches of the friends and of Elihu, besides the few references to cosmography[60] very little mythopoeic language is used. Eliphaz (in 5:7) speaks of בְנֵי־רֶשֶׁף “the sons of Resheph” to describe the “flames” or “sparks” which fly upward. Resheph is well-attested as the Northwest Semitic god of plague and pestilence.[61] Similarly Bildad in 18:13 refers to Death’s firstborn (בְּכוֹר מָוֶת).[62] The mention of “holy ones” (by Eliphaz in 5:1 and 15:15) is reminiscent of the “divine council” motif (cf. 15:7–8) of the ancient Near East in which the lesser divine beings participated in an assembly of the gods who made the decisions (cf. “the sons of God” in the prologue—1:6; 2:1).[63]

Now that the basic data concerning mythopoeic language in Job have been cited,[64] how does one explain the usage of such mythological language? The fact that the mythopoeic language is much more frequent in the speeches of Job (where polemical overtones appear to be present) than in the friends’ speeches strongly suggests that these allusions are merely borrowed imagery from the ancient Near Eastern cultural milieu.[65] Corroboration of this may be indicated by noting the presence of mythopoeic language in the Lord’s speeches.[66] Mythopoeic allusions are clearly present in the descriptions of the restraining of the sea with bars and doors (38:8–10 ),[67] of Leviathan breathing fire and smoke (41:19–21 [11-13]),[68] and probably of the underworld as having gates (38:17). It is also probable that mythopoeic language occurs in the personification of the stars (38:7 —parallelism with בְּנֵי אֲלֹהִים ),[69] of Dawn (שַּׁחַר) in 38:12,[70] and of the constellation Orion (כְּסִיל) in 38:31.[71]

Why did God use mythopoeic language in His speeches to Job? The present writer has argued elsewhere[72] that polemical overtones exist in the usage of this language. These polemical nuances stress the contrast between the uniquely sovereign Lord who operates by grace and the ancient Near Eastern gods who were bound by the dogma of retribution.

A twofold purpose may be seen in this subtle polemic against the gods: (a) to endorse Job’s monotheistic stance[73] in the process of exposing the inconsistency of Job’s action (unconscious self-deification) with his theological position; and (b) to emphasize that the Lord cannot be manipulated according to the dogma of retribution which bound the gods of the ancient Near East.[74]

The scope of this article permits only one example of polemic from the Lord’s speeches, namely, the subtle reaffirmation of Job’s implicit polemic against sun worship.[75] The Lord’s control over the sun is shown by His daily command for sunrise and sunset, although the word “sun” (שֶׁמֶשׁ) is never directly mentioned in His speeches.[76] This polemic against the sun, however, does much more than endorse Job’s monotheistic stance. Since the sun god was almost universally considered to be the guardian of justice in the ancient Near East,[77] the Lord’s control of the sun (and its limiting of the activities of the wicked—38:13–15 )[78] demonstrated that the Lord (and the Lord alone) was the guarantor of justice.[79] Explicit in this was the fact that the Lord, not Job, was responsible for meting out justice (see 38:12–15 and 40:8–14).[80]

Furthermore the portrayal of the Lord’s sovereignty over Leviathan, not only a symbol of chaos and of the wicked and proud (see 40:12), but also of Satan himself,[81] may involve a subtle double entendre for the reader which implies God’s victory over Satan who has been proved wrong.[82]

Other Literary Devices

The author of Job also employed several other literary devices in the composition of his masterpiece. Only some of these can be noted, and then very briefly, because they do not contribute in an obvious way to the overall purpose of the book.

Several somewhat related literary devices employed in Job may be conveniently lumped together under the general term “paronomasia.”[83] Selected examples of various types of paronomasia which occur in Job will be briefly noted. Some indication of the existence of alliteration is found in 5:8 where every word begins with the letter א except the last word.[84] Another common literary device is assonance. This is used, for example, in 12:2 where six of the seven Hebrew words contain the humming sound (“m”) which accentuates Job’s mocking sarcasm.[85] Rhyme occurs occasionally as in 10:8–18[86] and in 19:3–4, 17–21.

The use of assonance in Job 3:8 borders that of a play on words (or “sense”-paronomasia) where the use of יוֹם (which is suggestive of יָם)[87] is heightened by the pun between אֹרְרֵי (“those who curse”) and עֹרֵר (“those who arouse”), two virtual homonyms. Eliphaz’s play on the words “ground” (אֲדָמָה) and “man” (אָדָם) in conjunction with the repetition of the word עָמָל “trouble” (5:6–7) serves as an effective device to aid his clever argument that trouble does not spring from the ground but from man.[88]

Job 13:24 may contain a pun by Job on his own name (אִיּוֹב with the use of אוֹיֵב “enemy”) to describe his relationship to God.[89] This pun is similar to the subtle device of double entendre (or what Gordis designates talḥin, after the Arabic rhetoricians) which sometimes occurs. The author wished to bring both meanings of a word (especially when homonyms existed) to the consciousness of the reader simultaneously. For example, in 7:6 the use of תִּקְוָה (“hope”) also brings to mind its homonym which means “thread” because of the figure of the weaver employed in the verse.[90]

Conclusion

It has been argued that the Book of Job does not fit into a single literary genre; rather, its author skillfully interwove literary forms from at least three major genres (the lawsuit, the lament, and the controversy dialogue) into the fabric of the book in order to serve its function.

In a previous article the present writer suggested that the purpose of Job (stated in a negative fashion) was the refutation of the retribution dogma and its corollary that man’s relationship to God is a business contract binding in court.[91] In the present article this contention is supported by demonstrating how two major literary devices (irony and mythopoeic language) were expertly employed in the development of this purpose. Furthermore several other literary features (such as assonance, alliteration, and double entendre, which may be collectively called paronomasia) were noted. These less obvious strokes from the poetic brush, which often do not contribute significantly to the overall purpose, may be called the “finishing touches” to the literary masterpiece known as the Book of Job.

Notes

1. Even scholars who attempt to fit Job into one literary genre normally acknowledge the presence of other elements. However, they modify what they view as the overall genre in an attempt to include these other literary elements.
2. However, as noted by Michael Brennan Dick, “‘legal language’ itself does not constitute a distinct literary form, for the juridicial sphere encompasses a broad area of human life and does not correspond to a specific situation (Sitz im Leben) (“The Legal Metaphor in Job 31, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 [1979]: 37).
3. Heinz Richter, Studien zu Hiob: Der Aufbau des Hiobbuches, dargestellt an den Gattungen des Rechtsleben (Berlin: Evangelisches Verlagsanstalt, [1958]). Cf. James L. Crenshaw, “Wisdom,” in Old Testament Form Criticism, ed. John H. Hayes (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1974), p. 254.
4. Sylvia Huberman Scholnick, “Lawsuit Drama in the Book of Job” (Ph.D. diss, Brandeis University, 1975). Scholnick’s view is the most persuasive of any writer who tries to fit Job into one Gattung; however, she fails to recognize that the Lord’s speeches actually serve to discontinue this metaphor. See this writer’s previous article (“The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job,” Bibliotheca Sacra 138 [April-June 1981]: 139-57). Scholnick provides a convenient summary of some other scholars who have noted the idea that Job represents the proceedings of a lawsuit (“Lawsuit Drama,” pp. x-xi; cf. also Crenshaw, “Wisdom,” pp. 253-54).
5. Claus Westermann, Der Aufbau des Buches Hiob (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1956), pp. 4-5; and his Handbook to the Old Testament, trans. and ed. Robert H. Boyd (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1967), pp. 226-33.
6. See James B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3d ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), pp. 589-91; 596–601. Note the actual contrasts between Job and these three texts as pointed out by the present writer (“A Biblical Theology of Job 38:1–42:6 ” [Th.D. diss, Dallas Theological Seminary. 1980], pp. 21-22, 24).
7. See Hartmut Gese, Lehre und Wirklichkeit in der alten Weisheit: Studien zu Sprüchen Salomos und dem Buche Hiob (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1958), pp. 63-64, 73. For a helpful summary of Gese’s argument, see John Charles Holbert, “The Function and Significance of the Klage in the Book of Job with Special Reference to the Incidence of Formal and Verbal Irony” (Ph.D. diss, Southern Methodist University, 1975), pp. 41-43. Note, however, that Horst Dietrich Preuss states that Gese no longer holds to this theory (“Jahwes Antwort an Hiob und die sogenannte Hiobliteratur des alten Vorderen Orients,” in Beitrãge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977], pp. 333, n. 47).
8. Crenshaw, “Wisdom,” pp. 228, 254. SeeW. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1960), pp. 150-212, for contest literature in Mesopotamia.
9. Crenshaw, “Wisdom,” pp. 253-54.
10. For instance, none of these adequately accounts for the prose framework of the book. Note the interesting suggestion of Francis I. Andersen, that Job stands closest to the epic history of Israel in which a major point of interest is the speeches, often in poetic form (cf. Genesis and Samuel) (Job: An Introduction and Commentary [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976], pp. 36-37).
11. Jean Lévêque, Job et son Dieu; Essai d’Exégse et de Théologie Biblique, 2 vols. (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1970), 1:235. On the combination of these three genres see Georg Fohrer, Dos Buch Hiob (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1963), pp. 50-51: and his Studien zum Buche Hiob (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1963), p. 70.
12. The Berlin Papyrus 3024 from Egypt, which bears a resemblance in form to Job with its prose framework surrounding its poetic body, also employs several different literary genres. The theme of the dispute between the man and his Ba is developed by using three or four different literary forms including a legal dispute, a direct dispute, and two prose allegories. See Hans Goedicke, The Report about the Dispute of a Man with His Ba: Papyrus Berlin 3024 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1970), pp. 14-17. Thus it should be recognized that literary types are not frozen forms but are utilized in various situations which may deviate from the supposed original Sitz im Leben.
13. A concise definition of irony is practically impossible because it involves several nuances of meaning. There are at least three major types of irony: (1) Socratic irony (or irony of character) which is closest to the meaning of the Greek word εἰρωνεία—”dissimulation” (i.e., ignorance purposely feigned to provoke or confound an opponent); (2) verbal irony, which is a figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite (or a modification) of the literal sense of the words used; and (3) irony of events (in drama being called dramatic or Sophoclean Irony and in real life called cosmic irony or irony of Fate), which involves an audience (or onlooker) who “perceives that a character is acting in complete ignorance of his true condition.” The last type of irony was prominent in Greek drama in which the audience knew in advance the outcome of the legend being enacted in contrast to the actor’s own limited understanding of his own actions. See William Joseph Ambrose Power, “A Study of Irony in the Book of Job” (Ph.D. diss, University of Toronto, 1961), pp. 19-26. Holbert, a student of Power, has suggested another classification of irony in Job, namely, “formal irony” to designate those instances in which it is assumed that Job borrowed Old Testament literary formulas and then altered them in such a way as to heighten the ironic intent of the verbal ironies (see Holbert, “Function and significance of the Klage in the Book of Job,” p. 4, n. 6). However, Holbert’s suggestion is too subjective and involves too many assumptions which cannot be proved. His assumption that elements in Job are parodies on the biblical Psalms depends on a date of Job after the Psalms and ignores similar forms in the ancient Near East from a much earlier date. Thus only verbal irony and irony of events are clearly present in the Book of Job.
14. Since an exhaustive study of irony is impossible here, only selected examples will be noted. For other possible examples (some of which are questionable) see the excellent studies by Power (“A Study of Irony in the Book of Job”) and Holbert (“Function and Significance of the Klage in the Book of Job”). See also Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965). pp. 196-240.
15. See supra, n. 13.
16. The root סוּךְ used in 3:23 is related to the root שׂוּךְ used in 1:10. Between three and ten Hebrew manuscripts have סַכְתָּ (from the root סוּךְ) in 1:10. For a concise summary of the relationship between שׂוּךְ and סוּךְ as well as שָׂכַּךְ and סָּכַּךְ, see E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, trans. Harold Knight (London: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1967). p. 7.
17. This is technically called Sophoclean irony since the use of the root סוּךְ in this verse is a device which brings the reader’s attention to his superior understanding of Job’s situation in contrast to Job’s complete ignorance of it (see Power, “A Study of Irony In the Book of Job,” pp. 39, 25). The irony is accentuated by the fact that, when the hedge is moved outward, Job interprets it as becoming unbearably restrictive (cf. 13:27).
18. Power notes that the Sophoclean irony is “the hedge and guard that once were forsaken and despised but now are desired and esteemed have throughout the long and tortuous struggle at all times been present” (ibid., p. 138). It is not necessary to emend בְּסוֹד to בְּסוֹךְ in verse 4 (as Power, p. 136, and others do) to gather this from verse 2 and the overall context.
19. See Good, Irony in the Old Testament, pp. 201-12.
20. Whereas Job seems to blame God for his trouble (3:20), Eliphaz plainly implies that the fault is Job’s alone because of his wickedness (Holbert, “Function and Significance of Klage in the Book of Job,” pp. 120-21; cf. Power, “A Study of Irony in the Book of Job,” pp. 42-43).
21. See Pritchard for the comparable usage of the lion as a symbol of the impious in the “Babylonian Theodicy” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 602, lines 48–55, 59–64).
22. Job’s children had been killed as described in the prologue (1:18–19). See Power, “A Study of Irony in the Book of Job,” pp. 42-43, and Holbert, “Function and Significance of Klage in the book of Job,” p. 121.
23. Holbert calls this verbal irony (“Function and Significance of Klage in the Book of Job,” p. 122). However, this is more accurately dramatic or Sophoclean irony since Eliphaz is unaware of the events of the prologue.
24. Ibid., p. 123.
25. It is possible that Bildad intentionally reverses the way שָׁחַר is employed by implying that Job should be more concerned with seeking God than with God’s hypothetically seeking him (ibid., p. 157, and Power, “A Study of Irony in the Book of Job,” pp. 57-58).
26. Holbert, “Function and Significance of Klage in the Book of Job,” p. 157.
27. Sarcasm, which is often used interchangeably with irony, often can only be differentiated from it by the tone of voice used. Its tone is oridinarily very heavy and seldom hides its feelings in contrast to irony which uses a lighter tone and has a far more ambiguous effect (Good, Irony in the Old Testament, p. 26). The distinction between irony and satire seems to be that the latter, which involves subtle ridicule, is “militant irony.” It has a bit of fantasy which the reader recognizes as grotesque or absurd (i.e., inconsistent with reality). See Northrup Frye, Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 223-24, and The Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Satire.” Sarcasm, a biting and cutting criticism, is similar to satire in that its intention is to wound and even destroy, which is not usually the case with irony (Good, Irony in the Old Testament, pp. 26-29, 214; and The Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “Sarcasm”).
28. Cf. Henry L. Rowold, “The Theology of Creation in the Yahweh Speeches of the Book of Job as a Solution to the Problem Posed by the Book of Job” (Th.D. diss, Concordia Seminary in Exile, 1977), pp. 69-70, esp. n. 9.
29. Also it neutralizes Job’s ironic exposition of God’s wisdom and power (12:13–25). It seems clear from the contexts of verses 14–25 and from Job’s earlier attacks on God that verse 13 was spoken “tongue in cheek” by Job.
30. See Good, Irony in the Old Testament, p. 206, for the precise meaning of this reversal.
31. For an elaboration of how this was done, see Power, “A Study of Irony in the Book of Job,” pp. 100-102.
32. See 8:2 (עַד־אָן) and 18:2 (עַד־אָנָה). Job is tired of hearing Bildad’s “how long?” (ibid., pp. 102-3).
33. Ibid., pp. 118-19; cf. Roy B. Zuck, Job, Everyman’s Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 105.
34. Cf. Job 1 where Job offered sacrifices on behalf of his children. The retention of the Masoretic text (both in its text and vocalization), as found in the NIV, is preferred for two reasons: (1) it is theologically more difficult, that is, it appears to contradict the argument of the friends that the innocent—not the guilty—are saved; and (2) the versions (namely the Theodotionic addition to the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Syuriac) had to change the person of verse 30b to fit their translation of “innocent one.” Cf. Lester L. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), p. 85. As Gordis has proved, this understanding of verse 30 is in perfect harmony with the Jewish doctrine of corporate responsibility (as in Abraham’s appeal to God to save Sodom) (Robert Gordis, “Corporate Personality in Job: A Note on 22:29–30, ” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 4 [1945]: 54-55.
35. Ibid.; cf. Grabbe, Comparative Philology and the Text of Job, p. 85.
36. Power, “A Study of Irony in the Book of Job,” pp. 127-28.
37. Cf. supra, p. 215.
38. See Good, Irony in the Old Testament, pp. 224-25, 234.
39. See Holbert’s allegation, “Function and Significance of Klage in the Book of Job,” pp. 258 ff.
40. Good, Irony in the Old Testament, pp. 208-12.
41. Ibid., pp. 234-36. See the present writer’s “A Biblical Theology of Job 38:1–42:6 ,” pp. 110-12, for the significance of these and other ironic remarks. See also Elihu’s use of מוֹכִיחַ in 32:12 where he says that there is no מוֹכִיחַ for Job. See Power, “A Study of Irony in the Book of Job,” pp. 139-40.
42. Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” Hebrew Union College Annual 37 (1966): 86. Although obviously genuine mythological allusions are numerous, one must be careful not to be victimized by the mythological approach of Walter L. Michel, “The Ugaritic Texts and the Mythological Expressions in the Book of Job” (Ph.D. diss, University of Wisconsin, 1970), which attempts to read mythology (esp. Ugaritic) into almost every verse by textual emendation and by speculation. Pope is also often guilty of a mythological approach to Job (Marvin H. Pope, Job, 3d ed. [Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co., 1973]). However, neither ought one to go to the extreme to deny that any mythological expressions occur in Job “in a strained attempt to remove the writers of Scripture from such contamination” (Elmer B. Smick, “Mythology and the Book of Job,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 13 [1970]: 101-2).
43. Smick, “Mythology,” p. 101.
44. Ibid. The amazing thing is that the mythological allusions abound most in Job’s speeches and in the Lord’s speeches (where one would least expect them). In contrast, the friends employ little mythopoeic language.
45. It was a common belief among ancient peoples all over the world that a solar eclipse was caused by a dragon or monster which swallowed the sun. For a collection of several of these traditions see Theodor H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament, 1st ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1969). pp. 878-88, and also his book, Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East, rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1961; reprint ed., NewYork: Harper Torch Books, 1966). pp. 228-29. The daily opposition of the sun god Re by the serpentine monster Apophis in Egyptian mythology probably also included the concept that a total solar eclipse indicated the temporary triumph of Apophis who had swallowed the sun (cf. Pritchard, Ancient Neat Eastern Texts, pp. 6-7,12; and Luis I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World: A Philological and Literary Study [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970). pp. 21-22). Gaster has suggested that the promise of the protection and friendship of the sun goddess by Koshar-wa-Khasas (in the Ugaritic text—UT 62:35–52) belies a similar concept (Thespis, pp. 228-30).
46. Elmer B. Smick, “Another Look at the Mythological Elements in the Book of Job,” Westminster Theological Journal 40 (1978): 215.
47. Ibid.
48. See, for instance, the use of עַפְעַי־שָׁחַר in 3:9, “the eyelids of Dawn,” a personification of dawn which is equivalent to the Ugaritic goddess s̆hr (“Dawn”). See also Job 38:12 and 41:18 (10).
49. However, Job’s error in chapter 3 was questioning the sovereign purpose of God by condemning the day of his birth (Smick, “Another Look,” p. 215).
50. Job 9:6 describes mountains as “the pillars” (of the earth) (cf. 26:11). In verse 8בָּמֲי יָם, literally, “the high places of Yamm” (no article), has been translated as the “back of Yamm (or Sea)” by many scholars because of the Ugaritic cognate bmt (“back”). For example, see Pope, Job, pp. 68, 70, and Charles Lee Feinberg, “Ugaritic Literature and the Book of Job” (Ph.D. diss, Johns Hopkins University, 1945), p. 55. Verse 9 speaks of the constellation Orion which was conceived of as a giant hunter in ancient mythology (see 38:31). Verse 13 mentions עֹזְרֵ־רָהַב, the helpers of Rahab, רָהַב (“boisterous, arrogant”) being the peculiarly Israelite name for Leviathan (see Ronald Barclay Allen, “The Leviathan-Rahab-Dragon Motif in the Old Testament” [Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968], pp. 2-5, 66–67, 76). See also Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 923; and Mary K. Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), pp. 58 and 79.
51. Although the absence of the article permits יָם to be a proper noun, the article is not mandatory in poetry. The presence of the plural בָּמֲי (lit., “backs”) emphasizes that Yamm has many “backs” or waves because he is actually nothing more than a natural force (the waves of the sea) and not a deity at all.
52. Smick, “Another Look,” pp. 218-19.
53. Ibid., p. 218.
54. שֶׁמֶשׁ is cognate to Akkadian s̆amas̆ and Ugaritic s̆ps̆, both of which are employed to designate the “sun” as well as the “sun deity.”
55. חֶרֶס is a rare Hebrew word for “sun” used elsewhere only in Judges 14:18 (except for place names) (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew Lexicon, p. 357). In Job’s disavowal of sun worship (31:26), he employes the word אוֹר “light” (cf. Elihu’s usage in 37:21 ); in 30:28 he uses the word חַמָּה “heat” which is rarely used in the Old Testament to describe the sun (see Song of Sol. 6:10; Isa 24:23; 30:26) (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew Lexicon, pp. 328-29). The only occurrence of שֶׁמֶשׁ in the Book of Job is in 8:16 where Bildad speaks.
56. In 26:7צָפוֹן, “the north” was the cosmic mountain in Ugaritic mythology; verses 10–11 may denote a primitive cosmography of the earth as a flat disk floating in the subterranean waters (cf. v. 7) and of the mountains as pillars supporting the heavens. However, this is more likely phenomenological language (language describing the way things appear—such as meteorologists use “sunrise” or “sunset”—without necessarily endorsing this scientifically). Verses 12–13 describe Rahab, the chaotic monster (see supra, n. 50) which the Lord smashed to pieces. (See the similar description in UT 67:I:1–3, 27–30, where Mot seems to question the possibility of Baal’s defeating the chaos monster.) In 26:13 the monster is designated נָחָשׁ בָּרִיחַ “the fleeing serpent” whom the Lord pierced (cf. Isa 27:1 and also Anat’s claim of destroying the serpent in 'nt III:38–39).
57. See Smick, “Another Look,” pp. 222-23, and the NIV translation.
58. This assertion of faith supports the probability that 26:10–11 (and other verses where Job speaks) describe the cosmos in a phenomenological manner.
59. The present writer uses this term to describe a neutralization of the mythical concepts of the ancient Near East. This usage in 26:12 is in contrast to 7:12 where Job asked if he were Yamm (יָם without the article) or the sea-monster (תַּנִּין) that God placed a guard over him (cf. 'nt III:37 where Anat claims to have muzzled the dragon, tnn). See Smick, “Another Look,” p. 223. תַּנִּיּן , unlike Leviathan and Rahab which are personal names for the monster, is more properly a generic term for the sea-monster (Wakeman, God’s Battle with the Monster, p. 79).
60. See 22:14 and 37:18 where the sky seemed to be a solid dome (רָקִיעַ) over the earth. This is also probably phenomenological language.
61. Thus the term “sons of Resheph” describes the various types of pestilence (here “flames”) (see Smick, “Mythology,” p. 105, and “Another Look,” pp. 219-20; also Pope, Job, pp. 42-43). For references to Resheph, see Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom, pp. 670-71, 789.
62. Mot was the Ugaritic god of drought, death, and the underworld. See Smick, “Mythology,” p. 105, and “Another Look,” p. 220.
63. See Smick, “Another Look,” pp. 216-17.
64. The evidence from the Lord’s speeches has been deliberately omitted so far. Also some evidence was not included from the rest of the book such as several instances of personification of the forces of nature (cf. אֲכַדּוֹן—[28:22; 31:12 ] and תְּהוֹם [28:14 ]).
65. This is consistent with the strict monotheism of Job (31:26–28) and his friends as well as all the Old Testament writers. Allen’s excellent analysis of the Leviathan motif concludes that the mythopoeic language of the Old Testament was merely literary allusion, not “borrowed mythology” (“The Leviathan-Rahab-Dragon Motif in the Old Testament,” pp. 60, 63; cf. Bruce K. Waltke, Creation and Chaos [Portland: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1974], pp. 13-14).
66. If one assumes that these speeches are really the words of the Lord and not merely words placed in His mouth by the poet (the typical neoorthodox view), the presence of mythological language is a cogent indication that mere imagery is being employed.
67. In the so-called Akkadian creation epic Enuma Elish, the goddess Ti'āmat (Old Akkadian word for “sea”), who apparently represented the powers in the primeval salt water ocean, was slain and bound by Marduk in his storm chariot. After her corpse was cut in half to make the sky out of one half, Marduk provided for bars and posted guards so that her waters could not escape. (See tablet IV, lines 93ff, and esp. 139-40 in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 67.) Also see Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation, 2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951; reprint ed., Phoenix Books, 1963), pp. 40-42. Heidel interprets the guard to refer only to the waters contained in the sky (see p. 42, n. 94).
68. See Job’s allusion in 3:8 to the mythical Leviathan as a force of chaos.
69. The stars were worshiped as mighty gods in pagan cults of the ancient Near East (cf. Deut 4:19). For instance, the Ugaritic poem sometimes called “The Birth of the Gracious Gods” (UT 52) celebrates the birth of the astral deities Dawn (s̆ḥr) and Dusk (s̆lm)—lines 52 and 53—probably the brilliant star Venus regarded by many as both the morning and evening star (cf. Pope, Job, p. 292). For a transliteration and translation of UT 52 (= SS), see G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), pp. 120-25. The mention of “the sons of God” (cf. Job 1:6 and 2:1) bears a resemblance to the assembly of lesser gods in the ancient Near East.
70. See the reference to the Ugaritic god Sóaḥar in n. 69. See also the reference to the “eyelids of Dawn” (עַפְעַי־שָׁחַר) in Job 41:18 (10) and 3:9. The star Venus, likely called Sóaḥar in Ugaritic, was also venerated and associated with Inanna in Sumerian myths, with Ishtar in Akkadian, and with Attar (Astarte) in Ugaritic myths. See Helmer Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East, trans. John Sturdy (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973), pp. 9, 59-60, 141–42.
71. In ancient mythology Orion was a giant hunter. According to Dhorme (Commentary on the Book of Job, p. 132) and Theodor H. Gaster (Thespis, p. 322), Orion was the Babylonian god of the chase and war called Ninib (equivalent to Sumerian Ninurta, the stalwart warrior god with his hunting gear of bows and nets). In Egyptian literature the god Osiris (forebear and prototype of all dead kings) was alive in Orion. The dead king could go to the “Field of Rushes” (the Hereafter) with Orion; even the common (nonroyal) men rose and set with Orion as night stars. See Henri Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion: An Interpretation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1948), pp. 102-3, 105–6, 109–11.
72. See the writer’s “A Biblical Theology of Job 38:1—42:6.”
73. This included not only a belief in the sovereignty of God (see the writer’s article, “The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job”) but even polemical statements against other gods (Job 9:5–13; 26:5–14).
74. Job’s failure to part with this dogma (see 40:8) was not only inconsistent with his theology, but also caused him to adopt a distorted view of God’s sovereignty, namely, that it was cruel caprice.
75. See supra, p. 219.
76. Indirect mentions occur in the use of בֹּקֶר (“morning”) and שַׁחַר (“dawn”) in 38:12–15 and of אוֹר (“light”) in 38:19–20.
77. See chapter 1 of the writer’s, “A Biblical Theology of Job 38:1—42:6.”
78. In the ancient Near East, it was believed that the sun god drove the demons and other chaotic forces (often embodied in animals) back into their hiding places each morning. See the representation of the god of light (probably Shamash) in opposition to demons in Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, trans. Timothy J. Hallett (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), p. 54, fig. 53. See also Shamash seated in judgment of a lion-headed demon (ibid., p. 208, fig. 286). In Egypt the concept was that of Re in his sun boat emerging victoriously over the underworld serpent of darkness, Apophis (see Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion, p. 18 and fig. 8).
79. Job 38:12–15 is an answer to Job’s objections of 24:13–17 that wickedness was rampant at night.
80. Job assumed that the Lord was bound to the dogma of retribution like the sun god and in doing so unconsciously placed himself as judge.
81. See Revelation 12:3–17 (esp. v. 9) and 20:2 where Satan is called a serpent and a dragon. See also Allen, who argues that the Leviathan motif is consistently an emblem of Satan in the Old Testament (“The Leviathan-Rahab-Dragon Motif in the Old Testament”).
82. See Smick, “Another Look at the Mythological Elements in the Book of Job,” p. 227. (While the present writer arrived at virtually the same conclusion independently of Smick, it was a real encouragement to find another evangelical who recognized the significance of the mythological overtones of Leviathan for understanding the Book of Job. Except for Allen [“The Leviathan-Rahab-Dragon Motif in the Old Testament,” pp. 82-84], other evangelicals have minimized the mythological aspect of Leviathan for the Lord’s speeches and have ignored the possible significance of it as a Satanic emblem.) It is only through the permission of the Lord that Satan was allowed to use his forces of chaos and evil against Job. Although Job is quite ignorant of Satan’s role as described in the prologue, it may be through the familiar anti-creation symbol of chaos (Leviathan) that the Lord communicated the fact that chaos forces (within the sovereign restraint set by the Creator) were responsible for the calamities which befell Job and the apparent injustices which Job had observed and lamented.
83. Immanuel M. Casanowicz (Paronomasia in the Old Testament [Boston: Norwood Press, 1894]) divides this term into “sound-paronomasia” and “sense-paronomasia.” The former includes alliteration (“the recurrence of the same initial letter or its phonetic equivalent in two or more words in close or immediate succession”), rhyme (the agreement of sound at the end of words), and assonance (the coincidence of sound in the middle of words). The latter, sense-paronomasia, is a “play on words” or pun in which the combination of words of similar sounds produces a witticism or jest (see pp. 3-4, 8, 12). Casanowicz lists some fifty-two examples of paronomasia in Job (pp. 91-93), but his list is far from exhaustive.
84. Robert Gordis, The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 166.
85. Ibid., pp. 166-67.
86. Charles Lee Feinberg, “The Poetic Structure of the Book of Job and the Ugaritic Literature,” Bibliotheca Sacra 103 (1946): 290.
87. See supra, p. 218.
88. Good, Irony in the Old Testament, p. 203.
89. This was suggested as long ago as the Talmud (Baba Bathra, 15a). See Holbert, “Function and Significance of the Klage in the Book of Job,” p. 182, and Good, Irony in the Old Testament, p. 230. The plene spelling of “enemy” אוֹיֵב (rather than אֹיֵב) seems to confirm this.
90. Gordis, The Book a God and Man, pp. 167-68. He suggests that this device also occurs in, 22; 5:24; 9:17; 12:6; 21:13; and 22:25 (see p. 347, n. 51).
91. Parsons, “The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job,” pp. 139-57.

The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job

By Gregory W. Parsons

[Gregory W. Parsons, Professor of Biblical Studies, Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary, Jacksonville, Texas]

It is common knowledge that the Book of Job is universally admired as a literary masterpiece in world literature. Although most of the superlatives have been exhausted to describe its literary excellence, it seems to defy more than a superficial analysis.[1] There has been little agreement with regard to the purpose and message of the book. This article will seek to delineate the literary structure of the Book of Job in order to determine the major purpose of the book. The goal is to demonstrate how the author of Job utilized certain key themes in developing the purpose and message of the book.

Literary Structure

The unity of the Book of Job will be assumed in the analysis of its literary structure. It is believed that each component of the book has a necessary place in the overall design and argument of Job.[2]

Job is a complex literary work in which there has been a skillful wedding of poetry and prose and a masterful mixture of several literary genres.[3] The basic structure of Job consists of a prose framework (the prologue in chapters 1 and 2, and the epilogue in 42:7–17) which encloses an intricate poetic body.[4]

The prologue very concisely narrates how God’s servant Job lost his family and his wealth in a rapid-fire succession of catastrophic events. Then it relates that when Job’s health was removed his wife urged him to curse God and die. Job’s three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, arrived to comfort Job who remained firm in his devotion to God in the midst of his intense suffering. The reader is taken behind the scenes and informed that the reason for these events is that God was permitting Satan to afflict Job in order to test the motivation for Job’s piety. This is done by rapidly alternating between the earthly setting and the heavenly court.

The poetic body (3:1–42:6) begins with a personal lament by Job (chap. 3) in which he curses the day of his birth. This introductory soliloquy corresponds to the final soliloquy by Job (chaps. 29–31), and particularly to chapter 31 (his oath of innocence) which includes a self-curse. These two soliloquies enclose three cycles of disputations (Streitgespräche) between Job and his three friends. A cycle consists of speeches by the three friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, in that order) which are interspersed by a reply of Job to each speech.

This pattern is followed for the first two cycles of speeches (chapters 4–14 and 15–21) but breaks down in the third cycle when Zophar fails to speak following Job’s response to Bildad (chap. 26).[5] Rather than subjectively attempting to restore the allegedly jumbled text, one should recognize that this alteration of structure contributes to the development of the argument of the book. There are two basic lines of interaction which run through Job—Job’s crying out to God and Job’s disputations with his three friends. The absence of the third speech of Zophar is consistent with the fact that each of the speeches of the three friends is progressively shorter in each cycle and that Job’s responses to each of the friends (which also are progressively shorter) are longer than the corresponding speech of the friends. This seems to signify Job’s verbal victory over Zophar and the other two friends.[6] It is also indicative of the bankruptcy and futility of dialogue when both Job and the three friends assume the retribution dogma[7] (which for the friends implies Job’s guilt and for Job implies God’s injustice). Consequently, this structural design marks a very gradual swing toward a focus on Job’s relationship and interaction with God in contrast to the earlier primary interaction between Job and his friends.[8]

This swing toward an emphasis on Job’s dispute with God continues in chapters 27–31. Following a possible pause in which Job waited in vain for Zophar’s third response,[9] Job concluded his words to the friends in chapter 27 by collectively addressing them[10] and declaring that they had failed to convince him that he was a sinner who deserved his calamity.[11] Chapter 28, a wisdom hymn, may be a kind of interlude which marks the transition between the two major parts of the poetic body—the previous dialogue between Job and his friends, and the forthcoming long discourses by Job (chaps. 29–31), Elihu (chaps. 32–37), and God (chaps. 38–41) which are almost monologues.[12] Chapters 29–31 are comprised of Job’s soliloquies[13] in which he longs for his past blessed state of prosperity (chap. 29) and laments his present state of misery because of God’s afflictions (chap. 30, which includes an aside to God in direct speech vv. 21–23). The concluding chapter (31) consists of Job’s oath of innocence (common in ancient Near Eastern juridical cases) in the form of a negative confession complete with self-imprecations.[14] Job concludes the chapter with a legal indictment against God to present his charges in writing (31:35–37). The result is a pregnant expectation of God’s response.

However, the Elihu speeches (chaps. 32–37), which seemingly interrupt the argument of the book,[15] actually set the stage for the Yahweh speeches. Elihu appears as a type of mediator (an impartial witness) who speaks on behalf of God (36:2 )[16] by rebuking the three friends (cf. 32:3, 6–14; 34:2–15; cf. 35:4) and by suggesting that Job needed to repent of his pride which developed because of his suffering (cf. 33:17; 35:12–16). He recommended that Job should exalt God’s works which are evident in nature (36:24–37:18) and fear Him who comes in golden splendor out of the north (37:22–24).[17] These basic ideas of Elihu are either assumed or developed by the Lord in His speeches.

The climax to the Book of Job appears in the symmetrical Yahweh speeches (38:1–42:6 )—the two divine speeches with Job’s two responses—which are the culmination of the skillfully designed poetic body of the book.[18] This pericope is comprised of two divine speeches (each of which is also divided into two principal parts) and two human responses. The precise symmetrical arrangement is illustrated in a comparison of the two “rounds” of divine-human interaction (see the following chart).

Thus except for the summary challenge in 40:2 for Job to respond (introduced by a transitional editorial remark), these two rounds are perfectly symmetrical in basic structure. That no summary challenge was needed at the end of the Lord’s second speech is indicative that Job’s second response (42:1–6) was a willing one in contrast to his initial reluctant reply (40:3–5).

	First Round	Second Round
	38:1–40:5	40:6–42:6
Divine Speech	38:1–40:2	40:6–41:34
Introductory editorial note	38:1	40:6
Thematic challenge	38:2–3	40:7–14
Main body (in two principle parts)	(Inanimate creation) 38:4–38 (Animate creation) 38:39–39:30	(Behemoth) 40:15–24 (Leviathan) 41:1–34
(Transitional editorial note)	40:1
Summary challenge	40:2
Human Response	40:3–5	42:142:1–6
Introductory editorial note	40:3
Reply per se	40:4–5	42:2–6

The epilogue (42:7–17) in prose is basically a counterbalance to the prologue. In the prologue Job offered intercessory sacrifices for his family; in the epilogue he offered an intercessory prayer for his three friends. In the former God commended Job as being of blameless character, in the latter God gave a qualified commendation of Job’s words in contrast to the three friends. The prologue narrates the removal of Job’s family, prosperity, and health, whereas the epilogue relates the restoration of Job’s family and health and a doubling of his former wealth.

However, both Satan and Job’s wife (who are prominent in the prologue as agents of evil who try to get Job to curse God)19 are intentionally omitted in the epilogue. This deliberate omission emphasizes a major teaching of the book, namely, that man’s relationship to God is not a “give-and-get” bargain nor a business contract of mutual benefit.[20]

Purpose of the Book

Statement of the Purpose

It is this writer’s belief that the purpose of the Book of Job is to show that the proper relationship between God and man is based solely on the sovereign grace of God and man’s response of faith and submissive trust.

This involves (in a negative fashion) the refutation of “retribution theology” (a dogmatic employment of the concept of divine retribution so that there was an automatic connection between deed and state of being) and its corollary that man’s relationship to God is a business contract of mutual claims that is binding in court. This statement of purpose involves the assumption that the relationship between God and man is the basic problem of the book.[21] Although there are several subthemes which have been cited by scholars as the main theme,[22] it is the belief of this writer that only the basis of the proper relationship between God and man sufficiently encompasses these subthemes and qualifies, therefore, as the central focus of the book.

This problem is articulated in the prologue where Satan challenges the basis for Job’s piety by claiming that he served God only for profit (i.e., because he prospers—see 1:9–11; 2:4–5).[23] Satan’s challenge is reinforced by the fact that Job’s wife urged Job to curse God and die (2:9). That Job refused to curse God (2:10) was graphic testimony that his worship was genuine and that Satan’s allegation was false.[24]

Thus Job’s suffering as an innocent party was not the main focus but was introduced only as a means of isolating and intensifying the question of the proper basis of man’s relationship to God.[25]

Key Themes

Certain key themes are employed by the author to serve the purpose of the book and to assist in developing its argument. Perhaps the most important theme is the doctrine of divine retribution which pervades the Book of Job. Other main motifs which are utilized include the concept of a “mediator” and the persistent employment of creation and of legal metaphors. These major motifs relate to the purpose of the Book of Job.[26] (The concept of a “mediator” will be mentioned in conjunction with legal metaphors since it seems to be employed in such a context.)

The dogma of divine retribution. The principle of divine retribution, which is operative in some portions of the Old Testament,[27] and which lay at the core of ancient Near Eastern religions,[28] became a dogma for Job’s friends. Because the validity of this principle (namely, that Yahweh the righteous Judge rewards the righteous with prosperity and punishes the wicked with calamity) had become an unquestioned dogma with no exceptions, it was automatically assumed that all suffering was caused by sin.

Eliphaz and Bildad asserted that since God, who is an impartial judge, did not punish the upright man nor preserve the evildoer, Job’s suffering was a sign of hidden sin (see 4:7–11; 5:8–16; 8:3, 11–22; cf. 18:5–21). Thus it seemed evident to the three friends that Job was a sinner who needed to repent of his sins and to become piously obedient so that God would bless him again (see 22:4–11, 21–30, for Eliphaz’s words and 11:13–20 for Zophar’s similar sentiment). Bildad also stated that Job’s children were killed as punishment for their sins (8:4). Both Eliphaz (15:17–35) and Zophar (20:4–29) argued from experience and the traditional wisdom of old[29] that Job’s initial prosperity was explained by the accepted idea that the wicked enjoy only temporary prosperity and bliss before God metes out retributive judgment.

Because of the friends’ unquestioned acceptance of the dogma of divine retribution, they were championing the view that the basis of the relationship between God and man was “God’s impartial, retributive justice and man’s pious fear of God.”[30] As man related to God in obedient piety, so God would bless him. As in Satan’s challenge of Job’s motive for serving God, the demarcation between piety and prosperity became blurred.[31]

Job patiently denied the accusation of the three friends that he was guilty of sin for which he was being recompensed; he openly questioned the validity of the dogma of divine retribution because of the prosperity of the wicked (21:31).[32] Yet it is ironic that because Job accused God of injustice in order to maintain his own righteousness (see 40:8 )—operating on the assumption that God was punishing him for sin, though unjustly—he was unconsciously retaining the dogma of divine retribution.[33] Because of this, Job could not harmonize his suffering with God’s being an impartial judge. Rather, Job conceived of God as being an arbitrary and capricious Sovereign who abused His power (9:15–24; 12:13–25) and who maliciously treated innocent Job as a personal enemy (13:24–27; 16:7–17; 19:7–12). As a consequence of his suffering, Job viewed man’s relationship to God as being based on God’s sovereign caprice; therefore man could hope for happiness only by adhering to an ethical rightness superior to God’s whereby he could demand vindication (Job 31; cf. 35:2b).[34] Although Elihu was closer to the truth than the three friends because he seems to have sensed that Job was guilty of pride (33:17; cf. 35:12 and 36:9)[35] and emphasized suffering as mainly remedial in purpose (cf. 33:16–30; 36:8–12 ),[36] he also was wrong in assuming that Job was guilty of sin before his suffering (34:37) in order to defend God’s justice.[37] The explanation for this reasoning was Elihu’s failure to divorce himself from the dogma of divine retribution (see 34:11, 25–27; cf. 34:33; 36:17; 37:13). However, Elihu was right in pointing out the fallacious nature of Job’s position which implied that God owed man something for his righteousness (35:3–8).[38]

Although a major thrust of the Lord’s speeches (38:1–40:2; 40:6–41:34) was to polemicize against all potential rivals to His lordship over the cosmos,[39] there is also a subtle refutation of the dogma of divine retribution. Although granting that the control of chaotic forces of evil (which in some instances is inherent in the design of the universe—38:12–15) is somewhat consistent with the principle of divine retribution,[40] God demonstrates that the universe is not always geared to this principle. Rain, which not infrequently appears in the Bible as a vehicle of reward and punishment (cf. Job 37:13 [NIV] and 5:10), is inherently designed to fall on the desert where it has no relevance for man (38:26).[41] In Job 41:11 (3)[42] the Lord may be refuting Job’s apparent contention that God’s relationship to man was a juridical relationship in which God was obligated to repay him.[43]

The epilogue, which records the restoration of Job and a twofold recompense of his prosperity (42:10, 12–17), seems, at first glance, to confirm the doctrine of divine retribution. However, in actuality this restoration was not a reward or payment but a free gift based solely on God’s sovereign grace.[44] This is clear from the import of the Lord’s speeches and from the fact that Job’s original prosperity was not directly related to his piety.[45]

The Book of Job shows that only by dispensing with the traditional dogma of divine retribution was it possible to reconcile Job’s innocence with God’s permitting him to suffer.[46] The refutation of this dogma aids in the demolition of its corollary (which undergirds ancient Near Eastern religions) that man’s relationship to God is based on a juridical claim. Consequently, it complements the purpose of Job which is to demonstrate the only proper basis for the relationship between God and man.

Creation motif. During Job’s lament in which he cursed the day of his birth and deplored its creation (i.e., wishing that he had never been born [3:1–10 ] or that he had died at birth [3:11–19 ]), he summons the agents of chaos to annihilate that created day in order that he might live in peace (3:8–10). Job seems to have employed an anti-creation motif in which he wishes for the reversal of creation.[47] This motif was apparently utilized to emphasize the depths of his despair and the intensity of his anguish as a result of his abrupt transition from a life of bliss to a mere agonizing existence. Because life and creation had become hopeless and inexplicable to him, he preferred to abandon the created order to the confines of Sheol (nonexistence) (cf. 7:15–16, 21).[48]

Forrest has cogently argued that the reason Job desired nonexistence was his lack of perception of his own relationship to God or to the universe (i.e., Job’s belonging within the universe). Thus Forrest has suggested that since creation must “somehow be explicable to him to be worthy of credence (i.e., illustrative of the divine-human relationship in a comprehensible manner so that Job would want to live in the universe),” creation provides the scenario for Job’s basic inquiries into the nature of God’s relationship to man.[49] The evidence from the text seems to support this hypothesis.

Job said that the wondrous acts of God in nature are inexplicable to him. He could not perceive God’s nature[50] in these sovereign works (see 9:10–12; cf. 26:14 and perhaps chap. 28). Rather, God’s sovereign control of nature (creation) appeared to indicate an arbitrary abuse of power and wisdom (9:12, 14–24; 12:13–25; cf. 30:18–23).[51] At the same time, Job appeals to nature to be a witness for him of the obvious injustices of God against him (12:7–10; 16:18–19) and of his own ethical purity (see 31:8, 12, 38–40).[52]

This latter tactic of Job was diametrically opposed to the friends’ appeal to creation to support their theory of retributive justice as the basis of God’s relationship to man (Eliphaz in 4:9–11; Zophar in 20:27–29; and Bildad in 22:15–18 [cf. vv. 19–20 ]; cf. also 5:8–16). Eliphaz advised that if Job would submit under God’s corrective punishment, even the wild animals (as chaotic forces opposed to man) would be at peace with him (5:23).

Elihu’s speeches include a lengthy section on God’s sovereign and benevolent dealings in nature (36:26–37:24).[53] Elihu cited these acts of God as proof that God’s sovereign power and justice are beyond man’s comprehension. (Thus he apparently empathized with Job’s failure to perceive God’s nature in creation.) Although Elihu acknowledged that God used nature for His retributive purposes (37:13, NIV) and that nature is sometimes in chaotic opposition to man (37:6–7), he argued that the proper response of man to the sovereign (though inexplicably just) God is reverential trust (37:23–24). In this advice to Job from creation, Elihu prepared the way for the Lord’s speeches.

The Lord’s speeches (which are saturated with the creation motif) demonstrate that God’s sovereign cosmic power was not the retributive justice (as the friends had argued) nor the “uncontrolled caprice” (as Job had perceived it) of an impersonal cosmos, but rather the majestic omnipotence and mysterious creative genius of a personal and gracious God.[54] The absence of a reference to the creation of man is part of a polemic against Job (and man in general) which has as one purpose to show that God was not obligated to Job’s defiant demand for vindication because of his ethical righteousness (cf. 41:11 [3]).[55] God could not be manipulated or coerced like the impotent and immanent gods of the ancient Near East.

Because of Job’s perception of this and of God’s active participation in creation, Job responded in repentance and trust (42:2–3, 5–6).[56] Thus it is clear that the Book of Job teaches that the basis of the relationship between God and man is not one of mutual benefit or of a juridical obligation which binds God; rather, it is to be based on the Lord’s sovereign “creative, life-affirming, joyous grace and of man’s open, joyous trust “[57] in Him.

Legal metaphors. The Book of Job extensively employs legal terms and metaphors in the process of its dialogue concerning the disputed innocence of Job before God. That the dialogue is saturated with judicial terminology is quite consistent with the prominent role Job had previously played in the legal affairs of his town (29:7–17).[58] The use of legal metaphor also plays a part in illustrating the proper basis for man’s relationship to God.

Scholnick’s valuable study of the legal terminology in the Book of Job has demonstrated that the terms, זָכָה, זָכַךְ, טָר, and נָקָה (which can be employed in the Old Testament in the sphere of worship—”pure, clean”—or in the sphere of the court “innocent, free of legal claim”) are employed in Job almost exclusively in a forensic context to explore the question of Job’s legal status, both before God and in his community.[59] Other legal terms employed include יָשָׁר (1:1, 8; 2:3; 8:6; 23:7), צדק (which is used by each speaker, e.g., 6:29; 8:6; 9:15, 20; 11:2; 22:3; 35:2, 7–8; 40:8) and תָמִים (1:1, 8; 2:3; 27:5; 31:6).60

Perhaps the most significant single legal term used is the root רִיב which is used eleven times in Job (seven times as a verb—9:3; 10:2; 13:8, 19; 23:6; 33:13; 40:2; and four times as a noun—13:6; 29:16; 31:13, 35). As a verb in the Old Testament, it means “to make a complaint or accusation (by engaging in hostile unilateral speech activity) against an aggrieving party.” As a noun, it denotes “a complaint or accusation by an aggrieved party against one held responsible for a grievance.”[61] Although the word רִיב in the Old Testament sometimes describes a dispute outside court, it is used in Job solely in a legal sense as a metaphor to portray a “lawsuit” between Job and God.[62]

This idea of a man going to court with God is unprecedented in the Old Testament.63 Thus at first Job was somewhat dubious that he could raise litigation with God (9:3; cf. 9:16) since he views God as a sovereign and unjust judge who has abused His authority (9:19–24, 28; 23:7). But Job insists that God make His charges as a legal opponent rather than His verdict as an unjust judge (10:2).64 Job’s legal plight before God, who is simultaneously his legal adversary65 and his judge, accentuates the urgency (and yet the hopelessness) of Job’s cry for a neutral party to hear his case.[66]

The concept of a mediator (or neutral party) is introduced in Job 9:33 where Job wished for an impartial מוֹכִיחַ to arbitrate a settlement between God and himself.[67] This arbitrator was probably the ancient Near Eastern judge whose “verdict” was probably no more than a “settlement proposal” which could be accepted or rejected by the parties involved.[68] Job’s appeal for an impartial trial is continued in 13:7–12 where he accused the three friends of being partial witnesses on God’s behalf who argue His case for Him.[69] The theme of a mediator (or arbitrator) is continued in 16:18–21. Job expressed confidence that surely someone in heaven was his witness or advocate (v. 19, which uses ד followed by its Aramaic equivalent שָׂד).[70] The context (especially v. 21) supports the NIV translation of מְלִיצַי (v. 20) as “intercessor”: “My intercessor is my friend as my eyes pour out tears to God; on behalf of a man he pleads with God as a man pleads for his friend.”[71]

Similar to Job’s plea for an impartial “go-between” (9:33) and his confidence of a heavenly witness or intercessor (16:18–21) is his confident assertion that his גֹּל was alive (19:25). Because of the acknowledged complex difficulties and the diverse interpretations of Job 19:25–27,[72] it is impossible to speak dogmatically about verse 25. However, because of the widespread usage of the legal metaphor in Job, it seems likely that Job spoke metaphorically of the גֹּל as one who was “a helper in a lawsuit to see that justice was done to his protégé”[73] (cf. Ps 119:154; Prov 23:11; Jer 50:34; Lam 3:58). Job’s thinking seems to have progressed somewhat from the thought of a mere impartial arbitrator (9:33) to a legal advocate who could present his case and vindicate him as innocent before God (cf. 16:18–21). Consequently it appears unlikely that Job conceived of his “kinsman redeemer” (or legal advocate) as being God Himself. Rather, by using the legal metaphor Job expressed his conviction that he would be vindicated as innocent (which in an earthly lawsuit might require a vindicator or legal advocate).

The point in Job 19:25 is that just as there is a vindicator in an earthly lawsuit, so in Job’s dispute with God there must also be one who intercedes for him, but it does not make clear who this vindicator might be. Accordingly, what we have here is an inexact statement: Job wishes to express the conviction that he must be acquitted in the end, and he clothes this thought in the figurative language of the lawsuit: someone must vindicate him to prove his innocence.[74]

However, in light of Job’s legal plight in which God is both judge and legal opponent, Job realized that his hope for an impartial judge was futile. Thus Job could only wish for someone to hear him (31:35). (Possibly the concept of an impartial judge [or arbiter] is continued here.)[75]

Elihu, who stated that he would be an impartial witness (32:21–22 ),[76] suggested that if there were an angel, a לִיחּ (a mediator or intercessor), available to Job to plead for God’s clemency, actually this “mediator would be on God’s side, interpreting God’s will and leading Job to repentance rather than defending his integrity (33:23–30 ).”[77]

The legal metaphor often employed heretofore in the Book of Job rarely appears in the Lord’s speeches (38:1–42:6). This rare usage of legal metaphor (cf. 40:2, 8 and perhaps 38:3 which is identical to 40:7, and the absence of legal metaphor in Job’s responses) which may be used ironically (in contrast to the frequent usage earlier in the book) is significant.

Although impossible to prove, it seems likely that the Lord employed the verb אָזַר “gird up [the loins]” in a forensic sense in 38:3 (and 40:7) in order to heighten the irony of his twofold interrogation of Job.[78] A main function of the Lord’s speeches is to show the absurdity of Job’s attempt to manipulate God by a “lawsuit,” which assumed that his relationship to God is a juridical one. Consequently the Lord virtually ignored Job’s allegations of His injustice (except for 40:8).[79]

In 40:2 the Lord summarized His interrogation of Job concerning the universe by ironically asking Job, “Can he who contends with the Almighty correct (or instruct) him? Let him who accuses God answer all this!” (author’s translation). Yahweh ironically challenged Job to teach (or correct) Him in the matters of the universe to prove that he was equal to God and thus capable of arguing with God in court.[80]

In 40:8–14 God demonstrated the fallacy of Job’s impugning His justice in order to vindicate himself. The Lord’s usage of מִשְׁפָּח (in the context of divine kingship over the universe, 40:8–10, cf. Elihu’s usage in 34:17 and 37:23) serves as a corrective to the misunderstanding of justice (מִשְׁפָּח) by Job and his friends. The friends viewed מִשְׁפָּח as God’s retributive judgment on guilty Job (8:3–4, cf. Elihu’s usage in 34:11–12, 23–30 ); Job considered מִשְׁפָּח as litigation in court to prove his innocence (9:19, 32; 14:3; 16:7) or the processing of a case (13:18; 23:4; 31:13).[81] Both understandings were faulty because of an improper perception of the relationship between God and man.

This improper perception is refuted in the Book of Job. By the incongruity of the legal metaphor in which the Lord functions both as Job’s judge and legal adversary and by the Lord’s ignoring Job’s plea for vindication (or even a trial),[82] the Book of Job “reveals the bankruptcy of conceiving the man-God relationship along the lines of legal justice.”[83] Thus it is the legal metaphor “which most forcefully communicates the thesis of the Book of Job that religious piety is not amenable to the quid pro quo principle of divine retribution.”[84]

Conclusion

The basic literary structure of the Book of Job (a prose framework—prologue and epilogue—which encloses the intricate poetic body) is a part of the almost architectonic symmetry of the book which is also evident in the poetic body. Three cycles of disputations between Job and his three friends are enclosed by two soliloquies of Job (chaps. 3 and 29–31). However, the fact that the symmetry is lacking at the end of the third cycle of speeches (where Zophar did not speak) focuses the reader’s attention on the futility of dialogue between Job and his friends and aids in focusing on the interaction between Job and God. It also accentuates the need to resolve the main problem of the book (which was articulated in the prologue, 1:9–11; 2:4–5), namely, the basis of the proper relationship between God and man.

Thus the main purpose of Job is to show that the proper relationship between God and man is based solely on the sovereign grace of God and man’s response of faith and submissive trust. This involves (in a negative fashion) the refutation of the retribution dogma and its corollary that man’s relationship to God is a business contract binding in court. Three key themes (the dogma of divine retribution, the creation motif, and legal metaphors) were expertly employed in the development of this purpose.

Notes

1. See Henry L. Rowold, “The Theology of Creation in the Yahweh Speeches as a Solution to the Problem Posed by the Book of Job” (Th.D. diss, Concordia Seminary in Exile, 1977), p. 1.
2. In order to do accurate exegesis of the Old Testament, it is necessary that one examine the extant text in its final canonical form with emphasis on synchronic analysis as opposed to diachronic analysis. The latter dissects the text in an attempt to hypothesize about the original form of the text and its transmission but never seems to put things back together again (Allen Paul Ross, “The Table of Nations in Genesis” [Th.D. diss, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1977], pp, 14–17). One definite contribution of “structural analysis” has been its stress on dealing with the text as it is rather than preoccupation with a “dehusking” process to eliminate “what does not fit” (Robert Polzin, “The Framework of the Book of Job,” Interpretation 28 [1974]: 182-83). Cf. Robert Polzin, Biblical Structuralism: Method and Subjectivity in the Study of Ancient Texts, Semeia Supplements (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), for the nature of structuralism. This “dehusking” procedure has been often employed (in varying degrees) on the Book of Job. The outer “folktale” is separated from the inner speeches because it contains “a patient Job” whereas the dialogue displays an “impatient Job.” The speeches of Elihu are discarded as a later insertion because they seem to contribute nothing to the argument and appear to anticipate much in the Yahweh speeches. The hymn of wisdom (chap. 28) is isolated as a foreign insertion into Job’s speeches (chaps. 27–31). The literary scalpel then slices off, at least, the Behemoth and Leviathan pericopes (40:15–41:26) from the Yahweh speeches because they seem unnecessary and are “obviously” inferior to the rest of the speeches. Others have even eliminated the Yahweh speeches altogether as irrelevant. It is ironic that with regard to the Book of Job (itself a study in irony), which teaches the mysterious nature of God’s ways, man attempts to judge this divine book by subjective human standards. To fail into this trap is to miss one of the main teachings of the book.
3. As Andersen has noted, the Book of Job is an amazing mixture of almost every kind of literature which is found in the Old Testament (Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976]. p. 33). Besides the main genres—the lawsuit, the lament, and the controversy dialogue or dispute (see this author’s forthcoming article in the July—September 1981 issue of Bibliotheca Sacra)—many riddles, hymns, curses, and proverbs can be isolated within the various speeches of the book.
4. For two Egyptian parallels to this arrangement, see Berlin papyrus 3024 and “The Protests of the Eloquent Peasant” in James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), pp. 405-10.
5. Many different speculative attempts have been made to juggle the speeches of the final cycle or to attribute portions of chapter 27 (Job’s reply in the extant canonical book) to Zophar. This has been attempted because portions of chapter 27 (esp. vv. 13–23) seem to be more consistent with Zophar’s arguments than Job’s. For a concise defense of retaining all of chapter 27 as Job’s speech, see Roy B. Zuck, Job, Everyman’s Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), pp. 119, 121.
6. The only exceptions to the rule that both the friends’ and Job’s speeches are progressively shorter are the second speech of Zophar (chap. 20) and the third response of Job to Eliphaz (chaps. 23 and 24). See the similar conclusion of Zuck (Job, pp. 30, 121). Cf. Also Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. “Job,” by Andrew Bruce Davidson and Crawford Howell Toy (reprinted in The Voice of the Whirlwind: The Book of Job, ed. Ralph E. Hone [San Francisco: Chandler Publishing, 1960], p. 93). Note also the remarks by Elihu concerning the failure of the argumentation of the three friends (Job 32:3).
7. This dogma will be discussed later in this article.
8. This is not to say that Job’s focus of attention was always on his friends. He was constantly either crying out to God for response (cf. 10:2–22) or making accusations against Him (16:7–17; 19:7–12; 24:1–12) but was constantly being sidetracked by the dogmatic and virtually unsympathetic speeches of the friends. From the first cycle of the dialogue onward, Job often directly addressed God (see 7:12–21; 16:7–8; 17:3–4; and 30:20–23). Good argues that this indicates the hopelessness of appealing to God (Edwin M. Good, Irony in the Old Testament [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965], pp. 231-32). This appears at first glance to contradict the author’s own sensing of a change to a focus on Job’s relationship to God. However, Job often talks about God in the third person as an enemy, etc., in these sections, which indicates the impersonal nature of God to him. After chapter 27, Job ignored the friends completely (except indirectly in 29:25) and looked to God (though indirectly) in his soliloquy.
9. Zuck, Job, p. 119.
10. The plural personal pronoun “you” is employed in verses 5, 11, and 12 and the plural verb in verse 12 (Zuck, Job, p. 119).
11. Mö1ler argues that in 27:2–12 Job summarized his own basic arguments of the three cycles of speeches which he juxtaposed with the utterly nonsensical argument of the friends which he satirized in 27:13–23 (Hans Möller, Sinn und Aufbau des Buches Hiob [Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1955], pp. 61-63).
12. Andersen suggests that this interlude was written by the anonymous author of the Book of Job (Job, pp. 222-29). However, it is possible to understand this wisdom poem as Job’s words which summed up the typical wisdom teaching he had heard all his life (to fear God and depart from evil—see 28:28, i.e., to trust and obey Yahweh because He alone has the wisdom by which the world was created and is to be governed; cf. 42:5) (Robert Laurin, “The Theological Structure of Job,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84 [1972]: 86-89). This would sum up Job’s stance before God (cf. 1:1, 8; 2:3) in contrast to the friends’ assertion that he must repent of his sins and fear God (cf. 4:6–11; 11:13–20; 15:4–5; 22:4–30). The last verse of chapter 28 (v. 28) may also serve as a fitting link to Job 29–31 wherein Job gave evidence that be had feared God (namely, his past virtues—chap. 29) and had departed from evil (his oath of innocence—chap. 31) (Zuck, Job, pp. 126-27).
13. These correspond to the initial soliloquy by Job (chap. 3).
14. Although this oath was common in ancient Near Eastern court cases, the emphatic nature of Job’s oath is indicated by its length and its rare self-imprecation (Michael Brennan Dick, “The Legal Metaphor in Job 3l,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 [1979]: 42,47). This is strikingly similar to the Egyptian “Protestation of Innocence” in chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pp. 34-36). Because Job denied some of the charges made by Eliphaz against him (cf. 31:16–22 with 22:6–11), it is evident that he was saying to God that he was innocent of the charges brought against him by his friends.
15. These speeches have almost universally been rejected as a later insertion into the book because the flow of the book is smoother without them, because Eithu is not mentioned in the prologue or epilogue, and because of the alleged differences in literary style and vocabulary. See William Ewart Staples, The Speeches of Elihu: A Study of Job XXXII-XXXVII , (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1924), pp. 12-24. However, the present author holds that the Elihu speeches are a necessary complement to the Yahweh speeches. The speeches of Elihu, who served as a self-styled mediator in God’s behalf, are assumed by Yahweh in His speeches; thus Elihu was not condemned since his arguments were essentially correct. For an excellent summary of the objections to the authenticity of the Elihu speeches followed by a rebuttal, see John Peter Lange, ed., A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 25 vols., vol. 8: The Book of Job, by Tayler Lewis and Otto Zöckler, trans. L. J. Evans (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1874), pp. 268-73; and H. D. Beeby, “Elthu—Job’s Mediator?”, Southeast Asia Journal of Theology 7 (October 1965): 47-50. Also it seems providentially significant that three of the four manuscript fragments of Job which are extant from Qumran are portions of the Elihu speeches—namely two manuscripts from chapter 36 (4Q Joba and 4Q Jobb) yet unpublished (see Christoph Burchard, Bibliographie zu den Handschriften von Toten Meer, 2 vols. [Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1965], 2:327) and a tiny portion of 33:18–20 from Cave 2 (published by M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumran, 2 vols., DJD [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1962], 2:13 [# 15], cf. 1:71).
16. This theme, which is prevalent in Job, provides a connecting link to the previous dialogue and at the same time is proleptic of Yahweh’s theophany.
17. Zuck, Job, pp. 141-42.
18. Because the double exchange between God and Job is similar to the double exchange between God and Satan in the prologue, Andersen has suggested an unorthodox division of the Book of Job: introduction (1:1–5), speeches (1:6–42:6) and conclusion (42:7–17) (Job, pp. 20, 49). The speeches would be divided as follows: the interviews of Yahweh with Satan (1:6–2:13), the dialogue of Job with his friends (3:1–37:24), and the two interviews of Yahweh with Job (38:1–42:6).
19. See 1:9–12; 2:4–6, 9–10. Cf. Wilhelm Vischer, “God’s Truth and Man’s Lie,” Interpretation 15 (1961): 132.
20. Zuck, Job, pp. 15, 19, 189–90. This biblical concept, which is in direct contrast to the ancient Near Eastern concept of man’s relationship to God, will be developed further in the next section of this article.
21. Others who have recognized this as the main problem of the Book of Job include Rowold (“Theology of Creation,” pp. 11, 19); John W. Wevers (The Way of the Righteous: Psalms and the Books of Wisdom [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961], p. 75. “The basic problem of Job…is the relation of finite man to an infinite God” [italics his]); and Robert William Edward Forrest who says that the main issue is “what, if any, is the nature of the divine-human relationship and how may a man live in this universe” (“The Creation Motif in the Book of Job” (Ph.D. diss, McMaster University, 1975], p. 20). Cf. also Good, Irony in the Old Testament, pp. 197-98; Zuck, who writes that “one of the grand purposes in the book” is “to deal with motive behind worship, to demonstrate that it is possible to view life as other than a give-and-get bargain with God” (Job, p. 189); and Alfred von Rohr Sauer, “Salvation by Grace: The Heart of Job’s Theology,” Concordia Theological Monthly 37 (May 1966): 259-70.
22. These suggestions include the significance of the suffering of the innocent, the right behavior in suffering, the refutation of the principle of divine retribution, and the meaning of faith. Rowold gives a sampling of scholars who have held to these options as the main theme of Job (“Theology of Creation,” p. 18). He notes that these subthemes have hindered the recognition of the real central problem.
23. Ibid., p. 20.
24. Zuck, Job, p. 189.
25. That this is true is demonstrated by the fact that the main problem of the book was posed before suffering entered the scene and was resolved (see 38:1–42:6) before Job’s suffering was removed (Rowold, “Theology of Creation,” pp. 20, 29, n. 22).
26. Though these are not the only motifs used, they seem to be the most significant ones.
27. This principle occurs particularly in Deuteronomy and many of the prophets.
28. See the present writer’s work, “A Biblical Theology of Job 38:1–42:6 ,” (Th.D. diss, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), chapter 1.
29. Cf. Job 8:8–10, where Bildad also appealed to tradition to support his argument.
30. Rowold, “Theology of Creation,” p. 22.
31. Ibid.
32. In 21:19 Job objects to the friends’ argument that God stores up punishment for a wicked man’s sons by questioning why God does not recompense the wicked themselves.
33. In Job 31:2–3 he assumes God punishes the wicked; in 19:11 and 16:9 Job’s assumption that God was angry with him implies that Job subconsciously felt that God was punishing him for some unknown sin of which Job was unaware. He wished that God would reveal this to him (10:2). This is consistent with Elihu’s interpretation of Job’s position as believing that God owed him something (or was obligated to him) because of his righteousness (35:3 : cf. Elihu’s quotation in 34:9). He refuted Job’s position by appealing to God’s transcendence (35:4–8; cf. Eliphaz’s similar understanding in 22:2–3, 12).
34. Rowold, “Theology of Creation,” pp. 23, 27. Two possible translations of this verse are given in the NIV and its margin. Job’s hope of vindication because of his valid legal claim of righteousness assumes that he considered his relationship to God as a judiciary one in which God was obligated to repay him.
35. Zuck, Job, p. 149. The divine analysis was that Job was guilty of hubris (after his suffering began) in his challenge of God’s justice. He unconsciously became a rival to God’s position as ruler of the cosmos.
36. However, this angle of disciplinary suffering was also approached once by Eliphaz (see 5:17–27). That Elihu’s argument had much truth seems to be implied by Yahweh’s absence of rebuke of Elihu in contrast to the three friends.
37. Zuck, Job, pp. 148-49, 152.
38. See note 33.
39. This is the purpose stated in a negative fashion. See the authors, “A Biblical Theology of Job 38:1–42:6 ,” chapter 3.
40. However, this may be an ironic statement which shows that the wicked are indeed not broken but only controlled. Tsevat argues that this passage teaches that no provision for retribution nor its manifestation is found in the order of the world. He says that although “the dawn of every day provides an occasion to punish the wicked…. this possibility is not in practice realized and is therefore not in the plan of the world” (Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” Hebrew Union College Annual 37 [1966]: 99).
41. Ibid., p. 100. However, perhaps the main function is found in its implication that man is not the center of the universe. This is part of the polemic against man (who is not even mentioned with respect to his creation).
42. The enumeration of verses in parts of Job 40 and all of chapter 41 of the Hebrew Bible differs from that in English Bibles. In this article the English verse numbers will be cited with the Hebrew counterpart in parentheses (when noted).
43. See Job 35:3 and supra, note 33. The NIV translates 41:11 as follows: “Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.”
44. Rowold, “Theology of Creation,” p. 29, n. 22.
45. See note 25.
46. According to Tsevat, Job demonstrates the impossibility of the coexistence of the three ideas of an accessible God who turns His face to man (G), Job as an innocent man (J), and the philosophy of retributive justice (R). The friends eliminated J, and Job practically gives up G in order to maintain J. Only by giving up R can the other two be reconciled (“The Meaning of the Book of Job,” pp. 372-73).
47. Job seems to castigate light (3:20), the first act of creation (Gen 1:3–4), and wished that it would become darkness (3:4–5, 9). Also he disparaged the goodness of life (3:20), which was extolled in Gen 1:27–31; 2:7, wishing that he had perished at birth (3:11–19) so that he would have tranquillity in the grave (Forrest, “The Creation Motif in the Book of Job,” pp. 71-73). Fishbane’s argument that Job 3:3–13 is a systematic bouleversement, or reversal, of the cosmic acts of creation in Genesis 1:1–2:4a by the use of magic spells and incantations is intriguing but lacks much evidence to support it (Michael Fishbane, “Jeremiah IV 23–26 and Job III 3–13 : A Recovered Use of the Creation Pattern,” Vetus Testamentum 21 [1971]: 153-54). It is probable that if Job had gone this far, he would have taken his wife’s advice and perished or committed suicide (Forrest, “The Creation Motif in the Book of Job,” pp. 68-69). However, in contrast to the “Dialogue of Pessimism” (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastem Texts, pp. 437-38, 600–601) and to the Egyptian Papyrus 3024, it is doubtful that Job ever considered suicide.
48. Forrest, “The Creation Motif in the Book of Job,” pp. 67, 74-75, 188–89. This is apparently the reason Job also identified himself with the forces of chaos (see 7:12).
49. Ibid., pp. 56, 67, 185; cf. p. 188. This is also a major reason the creation motif is employed in the Yahweh speeches. Job failed to see the significance of this doctrine for actual life situations.
50. Job admitted his inability to understand God’s power and knowledge especially as manifested in creation. Apparently he could not truly appreciate God’s role in creation because of the overtones of arbitrariness (ibid., p. 82).
51. Because of God’s sovereign comprehensive power which includes even Sheol, Job had to abandon his wish for safety in Sheol as mere fancy (cf. 26:5–14).
52. This may be explainable in light of the ancient Near Eastern concept of the unity of the natural cosmos with the moral cosmos and the cosmos as a whole. See the author’s “A Biblical Theology of Job 38:1–42:6 ,” chapter 1.
53. Zuck, Job, pp. 158-62.
54. Rowold, “Theology of Creation,” pp. 168, 171.
55. Ibid., p. 168.
56. Job was shown the inconsistency of his theoretical knowledge of God’s sovereignty and his haughty actions against God. The root cause was Job’s faulty perception of Yahweh’s sovereignty (cf. notes 33 and 45).
57. Rowold, “Theology of Creation,” p. 183.
58. Sylvia Huberman Scholnick, “Lawsuit Drama in the Book of Job” (Ph.D. diss, Brandeis University, 1975). pp. vi, 103–04.
59. These four terms are employed in the speeches of all characters except God. Few exceptions occur to this forensic usage: זָכַךְ in the context of sanitation in 9:30 and in an “astrological” context in 15:15 and 25:5, and טָר in a metallurgical context (28:19) and in an “astrological” sense in 37:21 (ibid., pp. 3-4). In some cases it is man in general whose lack of legal innocence before God is mentioned (e.g., 25:4), but this is ultimately done to explore Job’s innocence or guilt.
60. Ibid., p. 3.
61. See ibid., pp. 109-10, and cf. James Limburg, “The Root רִיב and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (196 9): 291-304, esp. 293-96, 301.
62. In all but two instances Job is the speaker. Also in two instances Job describes his previous judicial activity in the city gate (29:16 and 31:13). Scholnick’s suggestion that Job is a “lawsuit drama” is not comprehensive enough to explain the multifaceted genres employed in Job. Scholnick overlooks the possibility that the Yahweh speeches may discontinue the legal metaphor. See the author’s forthcoming article in the July-September 1981 issue of Bibliotheca Sacra.
63. However, a servant could litigate against his master (Job 31:13) or a subject against his king (1 Sam 24:8–22). See Scholnick, “Lawsuit Drama,” p. 132. This unprecedented act perfectly illustrates Job’s audacity and hubris for which he must repent.
64. See Scholnick, “Lawsuit Drama,” pp. 133, 136, and Dick, “The Legal Metaphor,” p. 50.
65. In Job 31:35 God is called Job’s אִישׁ רִיב (literally, “man of complaint”), a technical term for a legal adversary (see Judg 12:2; Isa 41:11; Jer 15:10) (Limburg, “The Root רִיב, p. 298); cf. Scholnick, “Lawsuit Drama,” p. 149.
66. See Dick, “The Legal Metaphor,” p. 50.
67. The NIV has suggested this nuance of the word.
68. Dick,”TheLegal Metaphor,” p. 46. Veenker gives a summary of scholars who favor this as the function of the ancient Near Eastern judge and of those who question it (Ronald A. Veenker, “An Old Babylonian Legal Procedure for Appeal,” Hebrew Union College Annual, 45 [1974]: 4, n. 14). The concept of an intermediary figure to advocate his case before God is reminiscent of one role of the personal god in the ancient Near East. For thorough documentation of this intermediary role of the personal god in Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and Syria-Palestine, see Hermann Vorländer, Mein Gott: Die Vorstellungen vom persönlichen Gott im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, Alter Orient und Altes Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1975), pp. 87-90, 132–34, 162–63. Although it is impossible to prove, it maybe that this concept could have surfaced in Job’s mind for an instant. However, Job’s monotheistic conviction (cf. 31:26–28) would have prevented him from seriously considering such a possibility (Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation and Notes, 3d ed., The Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1973], p. 76).
69. Scholnick argues that Job summoned the friends to act as judges and witnesses, a role which apparently was not clearly differentiated (“Lawsuit Drama,” p. 138). In Job 31:21 Job himself spoke of his having previous legal help in his city court.
70. Cf. the NIV and see Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), p. 962.
71. Job 16:20–21, NIV. Less likely (but possible) is the understanding of מְלִיצַי as “scoffer” or “one who mocks” Job. Cf. NASB and the NIV margin. For the nuance “mediator” or “intercessor,” see Job 33:23.
72. For an introduction to some of the difficulties, see the recent helpful work of William Modawell Kruidenier, “The Interpretation and Theological Contribution of Job 19:25–27” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978), esp. pp. 2-10.
73. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, s.v.”גָּאַל,” by Helmer Ringgren, 2:352.
74. Ibid., p. 355. It might be argued that verses 26–27, which mention Job’s seeing God, indicate that the גֹּל Job expected was God. But since the legal advocate or vindicator (גֹּל) as previously sought for (9:33 and 16:18–21) was to be an impartial middle party between Job and God, the גֹּל need not be (indeed probably is not) synonymous with God. Although it is unlikely that Job conceived of God per se as his גֹּל, this is not to say, in the final analysis, that God was not his גֹּל (in Job 42:7 Job was vindicated to some extent). Also, in light of the New Testament (1 Tim 2:5; Heb 7:25; 8:6; 9:15; 12:24), Zuck is undoubtedly correct in stating that Job’s “longed-for Arbiter (9:33). Witness-Advocate (16:19 )” and “living Redeemer-Vindicator” (19:25) was the person “whom we know as Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Job, p. 92). However, one must be careful lest he should be guilty of imposing the New Testament back onto the Old Testament by saying dogmatically that Job knew who his גֹּל was.
75. In light of Job’s oath of innocence in chapter 31 (a common juridicial procedure in the ancient Near East), Dick has suggested that the participle is the equivalent of מוֹכִיחַ (9:33), the arbitration-judge. Second Samuel 15:3–4 may indicate that this person “was an official appointed by the king to mediate legal disputes” (Dick, “The Legal Metaphor,” pp. 47-48). The forensic usage of the cognates of שָׁמַע to designate the activity of a judge (as documented by Scholnick, “Lawsuit Drama,” pp. 188-89) seems to confirm this.
76. Because Elihu was apparently a mere bystander from the beginning (or a silent observer who came on the scene a little later than the friends), he qualified to be more neutral and objective in the dispute than either Job or his friends. Thus Elihu appears to serve as a type of arbiter who recommends a settlement. The fact that he was not actually a part of the dispute may explain why he was not rebuked (nor mentioned) by God in the epilogue nor mentioned earlier in the book. Beeby suggests that Elihu was Job’s “covenant mediator” necessary for Job, a non-Israelite, to know God face-to-face (“Eithu-Job’s Mediator,” pp, 42, 48).
77. Norman Habel, “Only the Jackal is My Friend,” Interpretation 31 (1977): 235. It is ironic that Job himself played the role of an intercessor in 42:8–9 when he prayed for his three friends at the Lord’s beckoning.
78. It is possible that belt-wrestling as an ordeal in court (as found in a Nuzu tablet in which it was proscribed by the judges) lay behind the usage of אָזַר as a legal metaphor (Cyrus H. Gordon, “Belt-Wrestling in the Bible World,” Hebrew Union College Annual 23 [1950-51]: 131-36, esp. 134-36). Contrast Zuck, Job, p. 165, n. 6. The present author considers forensic overtones probable for אָזַר because of the ironic usage of the legal metaphor in 40:2 and because of the function of the Yahweh speeches in showing that man’s relationship to God is not a juridical one.
79. Zuck, Job, p. 163.
80. מוֹכִיחַ (“the one who accuses or argues”) is probably a “pun” on Job 9:33 which prepares the way for the Lord’s suggestion that Job had tried to be his own “mediator” or “redeemer” (esp. 40:14).
81. Scholnick, “Lawsuit Drama,” p. 265.
82. This is heightened by the infrequent (and ironic) usage of legal terminology in the Yahweh speeches (see nn. 79 and 80, and cf. nn. 59 and 62).
83. Dick, “The Legal Metaphor,” p. 50.
84. Ibid. See also Job 41:11 (NIV).

7 factors that made Christianity supremely progressive

By Dan Delzell

[Dan Delzell is the pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church in Papillion, Nebraska.]

Sometimes today when people don't like the meaning of a particular word, they simply adopt whatever definition falls in line with their personal preferences and most recent feelings.

Sadly, even the immutable definitions of “male” and “female" are being assailed by revisionists intent on disrupting intrinsic gender distinctions.

Likewise, confusion occurs when self-proclaimed “progressive Christians” endorse abortion and homosexual behavior, as if these sinful practices are somehow suddenly pleasing to God and consistent with Christianity. In reality, Christianity was altogether holy and progressive from the moment God launched it.

“When the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under Law, to redeem those under Law...” (Galatians 4:4).

The following 7 factors made Christianity supremely progressive in the first century:

1. The Arrival of the Messiah. Archeologist W.F. Albright estimated the population of Bethlehem to have been about 300 when Jesus was born. So how did the prophet Micah pinpoint the exact birthplace of the Messiah roughly 700 years before Christ's miraculous birth took place? (Micah 5:2) God supernaturally directed events in order to fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Person of Jesus Christ, and to grant his people eternal deliverance from sin and death. Christianity is an evidence-based faith that God rooted in specific historical events. (See my 2013 CP op-ed titled, “The Mathematical Proof for Christianity Is Irrefutable.”)

2. The Life of the Messiah. If Jesus had sinned even one time, he would not have qualified to be anyone’s Savior. The Lord's opponents constantly searched for some sin in his life, but always came up empty. As a result of their hatred for Jesus, they often resorted to lying about the Messiah and eventually conspired to kill an innocent man. 

“He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth” (1 Peter 2:22).

 “You know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin” (1 John 3:5). 

3. The Ministry of the Messiah. Jesus often ministered to the outcasts of society, while always treating men and women with equal dignity. In spite of his many miracles, the religious leaders completely rejected Christ’s progressive ministry. The Jews wrongly assumed their Messiah would be an earthly ruler. Instead, Christ came to rule in the hearts of those who would receive him as Lord and Savior. Jesus said, 

“The kingdom of God is within you” (John 17:21).

When questioned by Pilate, Jesus said, 

“My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

The Lord's own disciples even struggled at times to fully understand various aspects of his ministry. (Mark 6:51,52; John 16:16-19) 

4. The Message of the Messiah. Jesus Christ announced: 

“God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

And Jesus told a Pharisee named Nicodemus, “You must be born again” (John 3:7). Most of the religious leaders rejected the progressive message of the Gospel. They refused to make the necessary transition from the old covenant to the new covenant. 

“Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance” (Hebrews 9:15).

 A major emphasis on eternal life in Heaven was one of the most progressive aspects of the Messiah’s message.

5. The Death of the Messiah. The Messiah’s crucifixion seemed at first like a terrible defeat. Even Christ’s own disciples couldn’t wrap their minds around their Lord’s crucifixion until after Christ’s resurrection from the dead. After all, why would the Messiah allow himself to be treated with such vicious brutality and appalling indignity? Isaiah prophesied over 700 years earlier that the Messiah would humbly redeem his people and suffer unrelenting agony in the process. 

“He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth” (Isaiah 53:7).

6. The Resurrection of the Messiah. When Christ rose from the grave and appeared to his disciples, they could hardly believe it! (John 20:1-31) After being filled with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, the apostles began teaching and proclaiming to people that Jesus had been raised from the dead (Acts 4:2). The preaching of Christ’s resurrection, however, was far too progressive for those who “refused to believe” (Acts 28:24). Nevertheless, Peter and John boldly declared:

“We cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). 

7. The Promise of the Messiah. Jesus told his disciples: 

“In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am” (John 16:2-3).

---------------

You don’t get more progressive than promising to bring your followers to a place of eternal perfection! It is the same promise Jesus gave the thief on the cross who placed his faith in Christ. Jesus said, 

“I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). 

Christianity has not changed in the slightest since the Messiah ushered in the kingdom of God in the first century. 

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).

If you have not yet received Jesus as your Lord and Savior, (John 1:12) I hope you will do so today.

The following prayer is a simple expression of Christian faith: 

“Dear Jesus, I repent of my sins and I believe you died on the cross to pay for my sins. Wash me, Jesus, with your precious blood. And fill me with the power of the Holy Spirit to love you and follow you for the rest of my life. Amen."