1

Job 42:2-6, a poetic key to the message of the book

(https://www.pinterest.com/pin/549017010807271634/ )

Assuming that the author of Job placed the essence of his poetic message near the

end of the text (where it would be most noticed and remembered, i.e., literary

“end stress”), I would argue that Job’s final cited speech (42:2-6) is likely to

convey such thematic significance. This short discourse occurs immediately after,

and in response to the climactic speeches of Yahweh (chs. 38-41) and right before

the book’s narrative resolution in 42:7-17 (the so-called “epilogue”). So what has

Job learned from this challenging divine discourse as reflected in his concluding,

now confessional reply?

2

Let us first have a closer look at the intricate construction of this passage,

which has been expertly shaped in order to convey the author’s consummate,

concluding message. After a short narrative introduction (42:1), the interactive

(YHWH—Job) poem is poetically expressed in the form of two symmetrically

arranged stanzas (A+B//B’+A’), the second of which (B/B’—1+2) elaborates,

specifies, intensifies, and indeed explains the first (as is typical of Hebrew A—B

sequential parallelism in general). Selected key terms and reiterated sounds are

highlighted in corresponding colors in the Hebrew text below:

Discourse Introduction

1 Then Job answered the LORD and said:1 ר׃ 1 ה ויאמ ויען איוב את־יהו A: Confession—What Job now knows about Yahweh

2 "I know that you can do all things,

ל ל תו כ דעתי) כ י־כ 2 *ידעת (יand that no purpose of yours can be prevented.” ה׃ ר ממ* מ ז מ ולא ־יבצB-1: Reason—Yahweh’s critical inquiry

3 'Who is this that obscures [my] design2

without knowing it?' (38:2) עת י ד ל ה ב ים עצ ה ׀ מעל י ז 3 מB-2: Reason—Job’s response

“Indeed, I have declared what I did not

understand—3

ין א אב גדתי ול לכ ן ה

1 The first line of this concluding portion of the book of Job structurally reflects the

opening of the penultimate section—the speeches of YHWH (chs. 38-41), which begin: “Then the

LORD answered Job out of the storm and said…” It is interesting that the passage of 42:2-6 is set

as a dialogue, with Job quoting God’s critical words, which he then penitently responds to. 2 The noun (ה may well refer “to the complexity of God’s cosmic design elaborated at (עצ

length in God’s speeches” (Samuel Goh, The Basics of Hebrew Poetry [Eugene: Cascade, 2017],

165). 3 Verse 3b probably refers to all the words that Job spoke in chs. 3-37, that is, before his

dramatic encounter with God. Note that the repetition of the idea of “not knowing” at the end of

each line of v. 3 underscores the nature of Job’s predicament before Yahweh’s direct revelation

(chs. 38-41). Much of what Job and his friends said about God during their dialogues was correct,

but it was misapplied mechanically and legalistically to Job’s current situation in life. In particular,

the “amazing things” (נפלאות) that Job had failed to comprehend about the Lord was his mercy

and grace—that Yahweh was always with Job during his dark hours, and that he would ultimately

vindicate his faith (16:19-21, 19:25-27).

3

things too wonderful for me, which I did not

know [about at all].” ע׃ א אד ני ול מ נפלאות מB’-1: Reason—Yahweh’s critical inquiry augmented

4 'Just listen now, and let me speak; (38:3)

ר י אדב א וא נכ ע ־נ מ 4 שI will question you, and you must inform

[teach] me!'4 ני׃ שאל* והודיע אB’-2: Reason—Job’s response augmented

5 “[Only] by ear-hearing had I heard you,

י* זן שמע ת מע ־א 5 ל שbut now my eyes {eye}—they have seen you!5 ת*׃ י רא ה עינ עת וA’: Confession—What Job now knows about himself

6 Therefore, I fully recant [what I said], ס ן אמא 6 על־כand repent, being but dust and ashes."6 פר׃ פ ר ו א מתי על־ עפ ונח

4 The chiastic construction of v. 4 highlights the two central personages concerned in this

theological and judicial “case”: you [Job] – me [YHWH] // I – you. Of course, Job and his friends

could not “teach” (ני God anything (v. 4b); in fact, they had misunderstood or misapplied (הודיע

divine instruction about human suffering—thinking that the Lord automatically punishes the

wicked and rewards the righteous. As abundantly demonstrated by his magnificent creative

activities (chs. 38-41), God’s ways cannot be predicted or routinely explained—except that they

are always “just” (40:2, 8; 41:10-11)—and therefore “good” for all who trust in him, as Job himself

recognized in the very beginning (1:21; 2:10). After Yahweh’s personal corrective revelation, Job

“saw” where he had gone wrong in his reasoning (*ת י רא ה עינ v. 5b)—and what he penitently ,עת

needed to do to restore their relationship (v. 6). “If the preceding stanza [A] contrasts Job’s old

and new knowledge of God, the present stanza [B] contrasts his old and new modes of knowing

God: the ‘hearing’ mode versus the ‘seeing’ mode” (Goh 2017:169). 5 The waw on ה עת is contrastive and emphasizes Job’s new perspective “now.” Job’s “old ו

experience is associated with the metaphor ‘hearing,’ whereas the new is associated with ‘seeing.’

‘Hearing’ in Job is a metaphor for the perception of God shaped by traditional wisdom. ‘Seeing,’

on the contrary, represents the perception of the divine by a special encounter. … The traditional

doctrine of retribution makes Job feel he has been wronged. … Therefore he presses God to appear

in person in ‘court’ and hopes for vindication. The resolution does come through a face-to-face

contact…God challenges Job’s assumptions by presenting a far more complex moral universe. Job

calls such an experience ‘seeing’ (42:5)” (Goh 2017:185-186). 6 The notion of mourning/great grief—“in dust and ashes” (cf. 2:8)—does not seem

applicable here after Job has been impressively and insightfully instructed by the Lord. His now

positive understanding of God’s omnipotence and governance of the universe would not be a

reason for mourning. Rather, this figurative paired expression refers metonymically to a person’s

4

This climactic passage of Job may be summarized as follows: Despite his

sufferings—past, present, and potentially future—and in view of the awesome,

unanswerable (cf. 40:4-5) divine revelation (theophany) that he has just

experienced (“seen”), Job publicly confesses Yahweh’s incomparable:

• omnipotence in v. 2a – “you can do all [things]” (ל ל תוכ ;(כ

• omniscience in v. 3c – “I declared things I didn’t understand” ( גדתי א ה ין ול אב );

• immanence in v. 5b – “now my eyes have seen you” ( י ה עינ ת* עת רא ).

This last-mentioned characteristic of God was especially important for Job. Thus,

far from being a transcendent deity who was remote from and uncommunicative

with his people, as both Job (31:35-37) and Elihu (35:12-14) had claimed,

Yahweh was nearby and close enough for Job to hear “by ear” (5a) his very words

of majestic assertion concerning his diverse creation and manifold preservation of

the entire cosmos. One might also detect here a possible initial fulfillment of Job’s

confident prediction that, despite his current depressing predicament, he would

one day “see” his “Redeemer/Defender/Vindicator” (אלי and “God” “with his (ג

own eyes” (י ועיני .(19:25-27) (ל

So how does Job respond to Yahweh’s verbal (and perhaps also visual)

reprimand? We hear this response in the crucial final verse six where Job makes

a double repudiation.7 First, in 6a Job says in dramatic conclusion (Therefore” על־

humble or insignificant status in the presence of someone much greater (30:19; Gen. 18:27; cf.

Goh 2017:184). 7 “Job 42:6 is the punch line of the entire book of Job. The reader waits with bated breath

to hear how Job will react to the majestic—though seemingly off-topic—divine response to Job’s

questions about justice. Will Job continue his protest against God? Or will God’s words effect a

dramatic change of heart on the part of our hero?” (Amy Erickson, “Job’s Last Words,” n.p. –

http://bibleodyssey.org/passages/main-articles/jobs-last-words, accessed 20/10/2016). Erickson

proposes four different ways of understanding v. 6 (loc. cit.):

1. Job is being sarcastic when he says, “I despise myself and repent of being human.”

(“Whatever, God, you’re all-powerful and I’m a worm.”)

2. Realizing that God will never acknowledge wrongdoing, Job gives up his fight even

though he rejects God’s answer. (“I reject your response but I will accept consolation for my grief.”)

5

ן ס) ”…I despise“ (כ but this verb normally requires an object, as in 9:21 ,(אמא

where Job laments, “I despise my life” ( ס י אמא חי ). Thus the addition of an implied

object, “myself,” as in many translations (e.g., NIV, NET) is certainly possible. But

could the poetic theologian be subtly suggesting something else by deliberately

leaving an object out? One could argue that what Job is “despising” here is

something implied in the immediate context, namely, the central concept found

in the first stanza of this text—namely, “knowledge” (vv. 1-3). This would be the

very understanding that Job sought to discern concerning God’s justice and

dealings in the world, especially with regard to his own case of perceived injustice.

Therefore, an alternative, contextually-shaped rendering for ס in this אמא

pericope might be: “I repudiate [my judicial claim of understanding/or quest for

knowledge, implied].8 From a larger perspective in relation to the book’s macro-

theme, Job is in effect lamenting his own lack of “wisdom” that did not manifest

the appropriate “fear of the LORD” (דני ת א ,cf. 1:1).9 At the same time ;28:28 ,ירא

he confesses his human ignorance about God’s overall plan or “design” (ה for (עצ

3. Job accepts God’s response and resolves to turn from his grief and live his life. (“I retract

my lawsuit against God and I will turn from my grief.”)

4. God’s speeches effect an interior change in Job. He embraces his place in the wild,

beautiful world, recognizes his own finitude, and submits to God in humility. (“I despise my words

[because I spoke wrongly about you, God] and I repent in submission.”)

As argued below (several years before accessing the preceding study), I have adopted an

interpretation that sort of combines Erickson’s proposals 3 and 4. 8 This interpretation is supported by W. D. Reyburn, A Handbook on the Book of Job (New

York: United Bible Societies, 1992), Paratext 7 edition (np). The suggestion is that this refers to

what Job has been saying in general about God, which is Norman Habel’s argument (The Book of

Job [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985], 576). Here I construe the implied object as having a rather

more focused reference. David Schreiner suggests that Job is saying, “You are all-knowing, and I

am unable to fathom your depths. I give up trying to understand it at all,” i.e., Yahweh’s

omnipotence and omniscience (“The Ambiguity of Job’s Final Words,” Faithlife Bible Study

July/August 2016, p. 23). 9 Job 42:2-6 thus reflects back on the crucial “wisdom poem” at the center of the book

(ch. 28). In biblical poetry, end points and central cores are often thematically significant and

closely related to one another (cf. ch. 1 in Lovely, Lively Lyrics: Selected Studies in Biblical Hebrew

Verse, SIL International, 2013).

6

the universe and his all-encompassing program for making its diverse components

cohere. This is in response to Yahweh’s rebuke at the beginning of his discourse

in 38:2, which Job reiterates in seeming self-condemnation in 42:3: “Who is this

that darkens my counsel without knowledge.”

Recalling his periodic, pain-induced complaints in the sequence of debates

with his antagonizing “friends,” Job realizes that he had gone too far in this regard

(“Surely [ן ,I spoke of things I did not understand…”). Thus, he either assumed [לכ

or desired to know, more than he actually did, or could truly comprehend about

how God operates (alternatively: how he should or should not operate) in relation

to humanity, especially during times of calamity and crisis. The key terms for

“knowledge,” “wisdom,” and “understanding” are found throughout the book,

especially in the divine speeches of chapters 38-41, so it would not be surprising

for these concepts to figure prominently in this concluding word of Job—which is

another instance of this man of God speaking “rightly” (or “accurately”), as the

LORD himself immediately affirms (42:7b, 8c).

Following from the preceding argument, in v. 6b Job then renounces his

right to present a case of unfair treatment, actually injustice, before the Creator—

a desire to defend his civic righteousness and personal integrity, perhaps even his

moral standing before God.10 Here again the translation needs to reflect what Job

is asserting as clearly as possible—thus, not “repent” (niphal of נחםנחםנחםנחם, which gives

the implication of some sinful behavior in English, e.g., NIV, NET), but better

“recant” or “retract,” entailing something like my “accusation, case, [or] formal

appeal” as an implied object. This too is in response to Yahweh’s initial rebuke in

38:3, which Job cites in v. 4: “I will question you, and you will answer me”—that

is, “answer” in a legal or juridicial sense.

All in all, there was clearly a problem as far as Job’s potent, persistent

verbal questioning is concerned, for Yahweh brings the issue up once more at the

10 Habel (1985) calls attention to the importance of recognizing the judicial, legal-dispute

genre as a hermeneutical frame of reference for understanding the book of Job as a whole and

with respect to its sequential progression (cf. Goh 2017:172-177).

7

very end of his first discourse and immediately again at the onset of his second

revelation: “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him

who accuses God answer him!” (40:2) – “Would you discredit my justice? Would

you condemn me to justify yourself?” (40:8). It is possible to see a reflection of

this matter also in the middle of Yahweh’s description of Leviathan: “Who then is

able to stand against me? Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything

under heaven belongs to me” (41:11). Leviathan, that legendary beast of terror

which was “king over all that are proud” (41:34b—the final words of Yahweh’s

discourse), was, for all his dreadful magnificence, still, like Job, a mere creature

under God’s total control and governance. Samuel Goh explains at length the

Ancient Near Eastern conceptual metaphoric language of Job as follows—

“Suffering is a Judicial Dispute [or ‘lawsuit’ rîb]” (2017:174-175, 180, 185-186):

The two models of conceptual metaphors [i.e., before and after God’s

personal revelation] betray the gap between Job’s perception of divine

justice and that of his [wisdom] tradition. … [In 42:2-6] Job is responding

to God’s challenge as his legal opponent: he conceded that he has

‘therefore’ obscured God’s cosmic design with his ignorance (42:3a), just

as God has said (38:2). This confession implies not only Job’s retraction of

[his] lawsuit, but also the abandonment of his modified model of

conceptual metaphor. In his own words, the legal conceptual model is

based on ignorance (42:3). … By ‘seeing’ [42:5b] Job actually refers to

hearing God’s words, albeit in a direct way. So, as in the Sinai theophany,

for job hearing God in a face-to-face encounter is as good as ‘seeing’ him.

… The divine speeches are a presentation of how God sees his own working

in the cosmos. The picture which God presents is morally more complex

than Job and his friends ever conceived. … This marks a paradigm shift

from seeing God though Job’s own perspective (which is shaped by his

[religious] tradition) to seeing God through God’s own perspective. …

Now after his face-to-face encounter with God (the ‘seeing’ experience),

Job is able to see justice through the [just] eyes of God. .. In sum, the book

of Job tells its reader that limitations of the earthly realm can be overcome

only by an experience in which God enters the human realm so as to allow

a personal experience of him.

8

How then do the “dust and ashes” ( ר פר על־עפ וא ) fit into this passage? A

literal reference is certainly possible—namely, to the “ashes” that Job was

apparently still sitting in (2:8) and the “dust” that his friends threw up into the

air upon seeing him in this condition (2:12)—and so the author suggestively

brings us back to the initial narrative frame, before the poetic speeches began. As

the narrative resumes then in 42:7, it seems as if Job reappears in his same

wretched condition, a situation that does not change—dramatically so—until after

he has interceded for his friends at the request of Yahweh (42:10). However, I

think that a figurative (metonymic) reading perhaps better reveals the prominent

character of this poetic, alliterative phrase. Thus, Job recants before his divine

Sovereign in a spirit now of deep “humility,”11 which reflects also his character as

portrayed in the first two chapters of the book and clearly contrasts with the

overly “proud” attitude that Elihu had implied that Job was guilty of (33:17,

34:37, 35:12, 36:9), and perhaps also Yahweh as well (41:34).12

Are there any implications for Bible translators in view of the preceding

textual observations? That depends of course on the degree to which one accepts

the arguments set forth in relation to this passage and the nature of one’s

translation (whether more, or less literal/idiomatic). The following are several

possible applications:

11 This metonymic reading differs from that of D. Patrick, “The Translation of Job XLII 6”

(Vetus Testamentum 26, 1976), 369-70, which is supported by Habel, who comments: “Thus the

text ought to be rendered ‘I repent/relent of dust and ashes,’ meaning that he forsakes his position

of lamentation among the dust and ashes and forswears remorse” (ibid., 576). In context, this

would seem to be a rather trivial understanding of this key passage within the book, especially

considering the fact that Job has not yet been restored by Yahweh (42:10). Schreiner suggests:

“Job’s final words can be read either as a statement of resignation, born out of job’s realization

that the answers he seeks about his suffering will not be obtained, or a pious acceptance of God’s

revelation in the absence of total clarity” (“The Ambiguity,” p. 23). Perhaps both senses apply. 12 Such an implication is strengthened by the strategic location of this final text (41:34),

that is, just prior to Job’s response to Yahweh’s speech of reproof. Another, similar metonymic

interpretation is possible, namely, one that follows the LXX and views this as Job’s denigrating

self-reference, i.e., Job is in no position to dispute God’s wisdom and justice because he is “nothing

but dust and ashes” (cf. 30:19-20 as well as Abraham’s similar usage in prayer with Yahweh in

Genesis 18:27).

9

• First of all, the explicit marking of the alternation of speakers (as Job quotes God)

in the middle of the dialogue would be important in many languages to avoid

confusion, for example: “You asked…” (3a); “But I declared…” (3b), “You said…”

(4a)—along with the use of internal (single) quotation marks, as an indication

perhaps to the public reader, to vocally modify one’s intonation at these points.

• The same goes for adjusting the normal translation of the verbs in the problematic

verse 6, along with their assumed implicit objects, for example: “Therefore, I

renounce my claim to knowledge, and I retract my case in complete shame” (a

more traditional rendering should, of course, be included in a footnote, e.g., “…for

I am but dust and ashes”). It would be helpful also to give pertinent cross-

references to earlier passages in the book (asnoted above) that focus on these

issues and Job’s burning desire to debate his righteousness with Yahweh.

• Finally, it would be important to employ an appropriate discourse style in the

consumer language that highlights the importance of this climactic portion of

direct speech—if not poetry as in the original, then some manner of rhetorically

heightened prose. In addition, special stylistic emphasis might be given to Job’s

personal “confessions” (3b, 6) which effectively withdraw his personal mistaken

assumptions concerning God’s justice, along with his prior assertion of the right

to have his day in the heavenly court.

What then does JOB [the book] teach us in view of Job’s final remarks?13

Limiting myself largely to the focal passage at hand (42:2-6), I might offer the

following personal reflections, which may have special reference to, and relevance

for those ministering to long-suffering Christians:

13 As Erickson points out (“Job’s Last Words”): “The meaning of Job’s reply depends, in

part, on the sentiment one reads into it. Not unlike the experience of reading a cryptic e-mail about

a controversial topic, the uncertain tone of Job’s response allows the reader to draw a number of

different conclusions about the attitude underlying the written words. In such a hall of mirrors,

any interpretation of this ambiguous text will reflect the view of the reader as well as the author.”

However, I might add that preference in understanding should surely be given to the “view” of

the [implied] author. How might this be done? “The view of the reader” should be shaped by a

careful study (including, if possible, a selection of scholarly resources) of the preceding passages of

Job—the verbal context of these closing words—in essence the entire book!

10

• God has a “wise,” well-designed macro-“plan” or “design” (עצה), along with a

related cosmic “purpose” (מזמה) for the entire universe, into which our individual

lives and destinies imperceptibly fit (42:2a-3b).

• God is not remote and apathetic, but is integrally involved in his creation. He is

the LORD (Yahweh)—a personal deity who desires a close, covenantal

relationship with his people, a fact that he publicly attests to (cf. 1:6-8, 42:7-9).

Accordingly, he cares for them and is ready to hear their petitions of need as well

as their complaints in times of trouble and hard testing (42:5a).

• Sinful mortals, even strong believers, cannot “discern” (בין)—let alone, fully know,

understand, explain, or predict (ידע)—the intricate, individual details of God’s

purpose for our lives, or perceive how this relates to the global design for his

chosen people. The “wonderful things” (נפלאות), all the detailed aspects of our

personal life-plan, may involve certain undesirable as well as desirable features,

viewing things from a limited human perspective (42:3a-b).

• The “upright” (cf. 1:8; 2:3; 42:7-8) should not presume to probe too deeply (or

confidently) into the unknown and all of the mysterious events or frustrating

circumstances that often complicate their lives (or, like Job’s friends, the lives of

others!), e.g., through prayers for special revelation, on the one hand, or seeking

out professional fortune tellers and primitive diviners, on the other (42:3a, 6a).

• Above all, believers should not accuse God of favoritism, injustice, negligence,

capriciousness, a lack of love, or any other inimical motive when evaluating their

particular case in relation to others, whether fellow Christians or unbelievers. No

sinful human being could ever win such a case in court against the perfect justice

of a holy God, and it is presumptuous to even contemplate doing this (42:4, 6b).

• In our darkest, most trying times, the best advice—the principle that underlies the

message of the book as a whole—is simple, but effective and God pleasing:

Continue to humbly “fear/reverence” the LORD and “avoid evil,” despite all

influences and temptations (psychological, material, physical, social, religious) to

give up (1:1, 28:28, 42:7). The subversive, interrogative “wisdom” of the book of

Job thus coincides, in the end, with the traditional declarative perspective of the

book of Proverbs (1:7, 9:10, 31:30).

11

• Finally, we must sincerely accept Yahweh’s advice to carefully “listen when he

speaks” (42:4)—not immediately as was the case for Job, but mediately in his Word.

Sooner or later, in this life or the next, we can be sure that we will, like Job, “see”

God with the eyes of faith—that is, experience the personal, gracious (ראה)

provision of an all-knowing divine Defender and Deliverer (42:5; cf. 19:25-27,

42:7-17). In light of New Testament revelation, such divine perception is found in

the person of God’s incarnate Son (John 1:14-15, 18; 9:5, 36-37), made possible

through the guidance of his ever-present Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:15-17; 14:13-14). This

latter perspective has recently been astutely applied by Samuel Goh as follows to

Job 42:2-6 (2017:188):

Our poetic analysis shows that that the poem emphasizes the importance of the

“seeing” experience. As noted, “seeing” is Job’s metaphor for an experience that

is beyond the wisdom tradition. … In the Sinai narrative (Exodus 33-34) and

prophetic books “seeing” is a special prophetic mode of perceiving God (e.g.,

Isaiah 6, Ezek 1:27). It is also a desired mode of knowing God in times of crisis.

Using language similar to the prophetic books, the psalmists seek such an

experience with God as they grapple with the problem of suffering (Ps 11:7; 17:15;

27:4, 13; 42:3; 63:3). … The priority of the “seeing” experience is no dismissal of

traditions as a whole. … Within the biblical traditions, both “seeing” and

“hearing” are viewed as important. So instead of undermining traditions, Job

speaks of their renewal and reformation. It reminds the reader that a person

experience with God is necessary to prevent their theology from limiting God and

calcifying the faith. … The reformative power expressed in the poem culminates

in the incarnation of Christ. The “seeing” experience is unequivocally expressed

in the Gospel of John: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We saw his

glory, the glory as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” … In fact,

the incarnation represents the kind of [“seeing” AND “hearing”] experience the

Old Testament authors dream of: a multisensory experience of God…(1 John 1:1).

Christ’s incarnation represents God’s breaking into the realm of the finite [as God

did for Job] so as to allow humans to know him in a personal way!

(For a study of the structural arrangement of Job, with special reference to its center, see at these

links: https://www.academia.edu/35482197/Guidelines_for_Analyzing_and_Translating_Job_28

https://www.academia.edu/6906276/Overview_of_the_Discourse_Structure_of_JOB_with_special_r

eference_to_Patterns_of_INCLUSION )

12

(https://www.pinterest.com/pin/521432463082295274/)

A final reflection on Job 42:1-7, 10-17:

In some ways I kind of hate the ending of Job, at least the very, very end. Here, after all

his struggling with suffering and faith and the apparent absence of God, the story raps up

with Job getting it all back, twice over. I struggle with the ending because it almost

seems to undo everything the book has tried to do, or at least that's often what's done

with it.

An example: Not long ago I heard a preacher trying to deal with a chapter from the

middle of Job. He read the passage aloud to begin his homily, and then held up his hands

and said, "For those of you who don't know the book of Job, don't worry, this isn't the

13

whole story. Job gets it all back in the end, so don't let this get you down." Well then, I

thought to myself, why not just skip to the end? Why not just give us the happy ending

part? Why bother with the struggle if, in the end, you're going to say that it doesn't really

matter?

The problem with this, it seems to me, is that it dishonors the reality of the struggle—

both Job's and our own. 'Cause let's face it, at least in this life the loathsome sores don't

go away having left no marks; most of us don't just have the cancer erased, or the loved

one replaced, or the wealth restored (double). Real-life struggles are almost always

messier, and there is rarely a magical happy ending to fast-forward to.

When I read Job, I find that I would almost prefer a "shorter ending," ala the Gospel of

Mark, for the book. Stop it at verse 6, after Job confesses his sin. Or maybe at verse 9,

after Job's questioning, far from being sinful or wrong, is praised by God as right and

acceptable (42:7-9), and his "friends" have gotten their comeuppance—a part of Job 42

that for some reason we don't include in our lectionary readings, although maybe we

should. Almost any ending would be better.

So if I may make so bold, let me beg you not to go there, should you decide to preach on

Job this week. It is my fervent hope that the preacher will resist the urge to do the

homiletical equivalent of patting folks on the head and saying, "There, there, don't

fret. Everything works out in the end; even better. Just see Job."

So what, then, can one do with Job 42, if not simply glory in the nice ending? There may

be several possibilities, I will suggest two.

The change in Job

First, is the change in Job. Call it a re-reversal or a change of heart, whatever the case,

Job's experience in his "Come to El Shaddai meeting," seems to have done the

trick. Chapter 42 finds Job neither questioning God aggressively nor intoning fatalistic

sounding pietisms. Here Job admits that he has been wrong. Here Job acknowledges

that before, he had not known God, that he had "heard of" God, but never truly "seen"

God. While it may be true that suffering and struggle will open one's eyes, and that one

may well view the world—life, relationships, spirituality, faith—differently because of it,

I don't think this is primarily what makes the change in Job. For Job, the change comes

when God speaks to him. Having confronted God Job is now answered, and so he is

changed.

14

Remember that God, in the missing verses of our reading, identifies Job's speech not as

sinful, but as "right." And remember that Job's speech is not rejected by God, but

accepted. The key is that while God accepts Job's speech, God does not allow Job's

complaint to be the last word, or for Job to "stay where he is." Job's challenge does not

go unchallenged; God responds, and sets Job straight.

This is a lesson learned from the psalms as well; complaint, accusation, doubt, are all

faithful expressions in their way, precisely because they are expressed in relationship with

God. But complaint is almost never allowed to trump trust, nor does doubt go

unanswered.

Things too wonderful for me

Second, is the use of the word "wonders." Part of Job's repentance is that he is speaking

of things he does not understand. With Job 38:4-7, 38-41 in mind these "wonders" may

be taken to mean the wonders of creation—the creation itself, the sending of lightning to

announce the rains, the rains to answer drought ("Can you tilt the waterskins of the

heavens, when the dust runs into a mass and the clods cling together?"), and the care of

all creatures great and small. These certainly are wonders, and are specifically used to

illustrate the many ways in which Job is ignorant of God's working.

But equally suggestive is another application of the word "wonders," particularly in the

book of Exodus. In Exodus the same root word is used to describe what we typically

think of as the ten plagues. Exodus 3:20, "So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt

with all my wonders that I will perform in it; after that he will let you go." Depending

on one's perspective the works that God performed in Egypt could be taken as plague, or

wonder. So too, perhaps, could the events of Job's life.

Job's story, the broad arch of which we have followed over these four…Sundays, is

defined largely by God's wonders, and wonder at and about God. It is God who is, finally,

at work in and through the Satan. It is God—God's presence, God's absence—that Job

desperately seeks. It is God's work in creation, and in the life of Job that centers the

answer given to Job's complaint. It is God who, though too wonderful to know, is all that

Job cares to know in the end.

In Job, with his struggles, with his complaint, with his wonder, we too can not just hear

of God, but see with our eyes.

(Karl Jacobson https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=467 )

15

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Job_Confessing_His_Presumption_to_God

_Who_Answers_from_the_Whirlwind%2C_object_1_%28Butlin_461%29.jpg by William Blake, 1821)

16

(Byzantine illuminated manuscript of the book of Job, circa 1400. Codex Gr. 135, folio 46,

Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, France.)