Robert Sutherland

What do you make of that perennial classic Book of Job?

I think Job puts God on trial and never really repents of doing so? I know many translations of 42:6 say Job "repents" but the Hebrew there is "naham" meaning "to change course". It is the word that normally describes God's so-called repentances. I think it important that the normal Hebrew word "shub" meaning "to confess sin" is not used. I think Job was changing course. Through his Oath of Innocence, he was on the verge of condemning God, but found suggestions of a purpose in evil in God's two speeches and decided to adjourn the matter to the Day of the Final Judgment to await a more definitive answer to the question of why there is evil in the world.

mrmoderate

I enjoy Job for the interaction between man and God. God rips into Job for not being able create one living thing but yet feels inclined to complain. Job, while obviously getting a bit annoyed at being the pin doll for Satanic deeds still never gives up on God. That is the basic reason for the story of Job.

The Hebrew word "nacham" was the word translated into "repent". According to Strong's #5162, "nacham", naw-kham'; a prim. root; prop. to sigh, i.e. breath strongly; by impl. to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (refl.) [i]rue]; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):- comfort (self), ease [one's self], repent (-er, -ing, self)

FordMadoxBrown

C G Jung has an interesting theory that it was Job's answerign back to God that caused god to realise the necessity of coming doen to earth a s a man to suffer here. I think that as with Jonah causing God to change His mind, Job is a significant stage inthe evolution of God.

ichabod crane

Nacham in most instances when it is used of humans (which are very common), means to grieve or to sorrowfully mourn. However, it certainly can mean to repent; a very clear example is Jer. 8:6, which reads "I have listened and heard, They have spoken what is not right; No man repented (nicham, nif`al participle of nacham) of his wickedness, Saying, 'What have I done?'" There's no doubt that it's talking about repentence there.

The stem is relevant; if it means repentence, it has to be in the nif`al stem, or more unusually in the hitpa`el. But in Job 42:6 it's the nif`al vav consecutive perfect, so repent is a real possibility. It seems to fit the context, since he is showing remorse.

Robert Sutherland

1. “Naham normally means either “to change course� or “to comfort or be comforted�. (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 570-571. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 2, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans. M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 734-739.; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 3, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 81-82.; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 9, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 340-355.

2. If the word is to be understood as “changing course�, then Job “changes course� with respect to the enforcement mechanism of his Oath of Innocence. When God appeared to Job and did not enter a defense, Job was automatically vindicated in his two-fold claim that God is the author of undeserved evil in the world and that he had a right to know the reason why. On the terms of the Oath of Innocence, he was morally and legally entitled to “proceed further� to a condemnation of God by way of curse. And without any suggestions of a possible answer to the question of evil in the world, he had intended to condemn God. But such suggestions of moral purpose in evil were forthcoming in God’s second speech. So Job rightly changes his mind and changes the course of his prosecution of God. Job does not and cannot retract or withdraw his Oath of Innocence. That would be to prematurely acquit God. That would be a sin. There is a prima facie case for God to answer that has not been answered. Evil cannot be simply dismissed as something other than it is. God would not allow such partiality in judgement to go unpunished. Job adjourns the Oath of Innocence to the Day of Judgment so that he might hear from Redeemer a third time. The adjournment is implied in the phrase “in dust and ashes�.

3. If the word is to be understood as “being comforted�, then Job is “comforted� in two ways. First, when God appeared to Job and did not enter a defense, Job was automatically vindicated in his two-fold claim that God is the author of undeserved evil in the world and that he had a right to know the reason why. Second, Job is “comforted� that God has come to him in the midst of his suffering. It is evidence that God cares. It is evidence that persuades Job to adjourn his Oath of Innocence, to wait for God’s final answer. God has not abandoned Job. God has not abandoned mankind. Whatever is the reason for evil in the world, it is not punishment or character development. Still the evidence of God’s presence is not sufficient evidence to acquit God on the charges facing him. The mere fact that God is with those who suffer is not, in and of itself, a justification for God having caused the suffering in the first place. God’s ex-post facto compassion may be relevant to sentence but not to guilt. Job adjourns the Oath of Innocence to the Day of Judgment so that he might hear from his Redeemer a third time. The fact that God cares encourages Job to believe he will ultimately get that answer. The adjournment is implied in the phrase “in dust and ashes�.

4. “Naham� can be translated “repent� but only in the loosest possible sense and a potentially misleading sense. The New Oxford Annotated Edition of the NRSV adds an important editorial note to its translation of the word “naham� as “repent�: “Repent, a verb that is often used to indicate a change of mind on the Lord’s part (Exodus 32:14; Jeremiah 18:8, 10). Here it does not mean repentance for sin (see vv. 7-8, where Job is said to have spoken what is right).� (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal/ Deuterocanonical Books, Edit. B.M.Metzger and R.E.Murphy (Oxford University Press, New York, 1991) footnote to Job 42:6).

5. “Shub� is the normal Hebrew word for a repentance that involves a confession of wrongdoing or sin. (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 571, 909) “Shub� means “turning away from sin and returning to God through repentance.� (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 2 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) p. 909.; Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 3, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans. M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 1312-1317.; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 4, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 55-59. )

6. I think the author of The Book of Job has carefully chosen his words. He has deliberately chosen “naham� as opposed to “shub�. The author is tempting the inattentive reader to premature judgment. This has been an important theme throughout the book. He is tempting the reader to find that Job is confessing sin, either for his so-called excessive words, his Oath of Innocence or both. Nothing could be further from the truth. Job never confesses sin. He never confesses to having wrongfully used excessive language. He never confesses to having wrongfully instituted his Oath of Innocence. And he never retracts or withdraws his Oath of Innocence. God would later say Job was right in everything he said. (Job 42:7-8) In the face of such a judgment, there is no room to attribute sin or wrongdoing to Job for either his so-called excessive words or his Oath of Innocence. If Job were actually confessing sin of any sort, then Job would be damned on the terms of his Oath of Innocence. The Oath of Innocence once sworn cannot be withdrawn as having been wrongfully instituted. If Job were actually confessing sin of any sort, then Satan would be proven right in his challenge of God. And the consequences would be enormous. God would be proven wrong in his three judgments on Job. (Job 1:8-9; 2:3; 42:7) God should step down from his throne. And all of mankind should be destroyed as a failed project.

mrmoderate

While other Hebrew words are sprinkled through the bible for the translation of "repent" the most commonly translated to "repent" is nacham, which is repentance, not "comfort or change".

Nacham is translated into "comfort" in many passages including other passages in Job but not in Job 42:6 and is not translated as "change" anywhere.

The Hebrew "shuwb" (Strong's 7725) which is lesser used for repent in other passages means more "to turn back", convert etc.

Again, I am referencing the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of Bible, which I believe is the undisputed authority on biblical translations.

Steven Carr

Of course, when God answers Job's accusations, God never explains the real reason why God allowed Satan to attack him.

Did God tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I think not.

Robert Sutherland

mrmoderate:

I do not believe many, if any, scholars would regard Strong as the ultimate authority in lexicography.

On your interpretation that Job is actually confessing sin, then how would you read God's statment that Job spoke "rightly" about God and the others didn't? (Job 42:7)

Here is how I read it.

1. The Hebrew word behind “right� is “kuwn�. “Kuwn� means “to establish as right or true�. (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 433-434. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament: Volume 2, Edit. E. Jenni and C. Westermann; Trans. M.E. Biddle (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, 1997) pp. 602-606.; New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis: Volume 2, Edit. W.A. Van Gemeren (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1997) pp. 615-617.; Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament: Volume 7, Edit. G.J.Botterweck, H.Ringgren; Trans. J.T.Willis (Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, 1974) pp. 89-101. “The root meaning is to bring something into being with the consequence that its existence is a certainty.� (Harris, R.L., Archer, G.L. and Waltke, B.K, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: Volume 1 (The Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, 1980) pp. 433.)

2. It does not carry with it any nuance of “sincerity� such that God might be understood to be excusing Job for speaking “sincerely�, but “incorrectly�. God is saying Job spoke “correctly� (Pope, M., The Anchor Bible: Job (Doubleday, New York, 1973) p. 350.)

3. Through his Oath of Innocence, Job has established with certainty two points. First, God is the author of evil in the world and that evil is undeserved. Second, man has a right and need to know what why God has sent evil into the world. That is the judgment of God. Any attempt to limit the scope of God’s words here to Job’s declaration of innocence alone is fundamentally flawed. In his Oath of Innocence, Job asserted both his innocence and God’s causal responsibility for evil. A declaration of innocence is a statement about Job. A declaration of causal responsibility by God is a statement about God. Since God says the truth of Job’s statements and the error of friends’ statements lays in their comments on God, God’s comments here make no sense unless he is referring to Job’s attribution of evil to God and his friends’ denials of that attribution.

Robert Sutherland

Steve Carr:

I agree that God does not directly answer Job's moral questions in his two speeches.

I think God cannot, within the dynamics of the lawsuit dramas within the book, give the answer given in heaven. (Job 1:9-11) If Satan's challenge of God puts God on trial as I believe it does, then God's defense is trial by ordeal with Job as his champion. The implicit restriction on God's defense is he cannot tell Job the reason why lest it give Job a selfish reason to continue his love for God.

Steven Carr

You mean if Job realised God had subjected him to trial by ordeal, he would love him all the more??