the end of the book of job and job 42

After Job finishes his words in 31:40, there is a rambling six chapter speech by Elihu (which I have suggested has several features of a divine word in this essay), and a four chapter speech by God (though some might suggest this was really a speech of the Satan) before we come to the climactic chapter of the Book, ch. 42. I have prepared three detailed study guide essays on Job 42, and really cannot improve on them here. Yet I will try to focus on what is "doable" in an hour in the following words.

42:1-6 Job's "Confession"

As I state elsewhere, a crucial question to raise at this point is what we think Job's state of mind is at the beginning of ch. 42. We saw how that question was important in considering the "tone" of Eliphaz's speech in 4-5, and that question can be raised at almost every subsequent point in the book. Since we know that communication happens, in large part, through unspoken thoughts and gestures, we have to be willing to raise this question as the drama unfolds. The same thing is true for Shakespeare's plays, for example. The text is "flat" as we read each page. We as reader/hearer, or the director, have to ask before each speech, "How is this said?" or "To whom is this directed?" Play with that question for a while, and see if people can point to earlier passages from Job to support their answers.

Then, the next question is how Job speaks the words in 42:1-6? Is he abandoning himself to God? Realizing that it is impossible to oppose the overwhelming might of God and therefore giving the white flag? Willingly and joyously submitting himself to God? Giving up religion altogether? (this would be the situation if we translated v. 6, along with Professor Good, as "I repent from dust and ashes"--I give up religion altogether). Is he beaten into submission by God or has he realized some truths about life through hearing the words of Elihu and God? I vacillate in my approach between the Job who remains defiant, but broken, and the Job who finally sees things differently and therefore is able to change his view of his distress. I lean now towards the latter. With this interpretation, then, I would see these verses as Job's accepting Elihu's advice to look at his distress differently. Thus, the problem of loss and pain for Job and for us is really an interpretive problem, a problem in finding a hermeneutic, a means for integrating the pain into the story of our lives. In looking at 42:1-6 this way, I see Job enlarging his interpretation of his loss. No longer does it simply mean that God hates him. There are other, and bigger, lessons. I don't think, however, that by 42:6 Job is aware of what those lessons are.

42:7-9--The Great Apology

How do you read these verses? I would take the class slowly through these three verses, and ask what it means when God says that the friends didn't speak correctly about God, as did Job. Job, God says, spoke correctly about God. When? I would argue that he spoke correctly about God since the beginning of the book--since at least Job 3. This means that Job was basically correct in his suspicions voiced throughout the book. The interesting thing for me, however, is that Job is pronounced correct when being right isn't important to him anymore. It was so important for him to be found just and right as recently as ch. 31, but now, when he has abandoned himself in 42:1-6 (adopting the interpretation that Job has learned to see his distress from a different angle), he isn't interested in that anymore. Who knows exactly where his mind is after 42:6? I tend to think he is simply stunned or shocked, not knowing what to do but knowing also that he has no more words to say. Then, God saves the day by speaking in 42:7-8. My question here has to do with why God only chides the three friends and not Elihu, as well as what God is saying here. When have the friends not spoken right about God? Well, of course, when they had been speaking in the earlier parts of the book. Is God saying, then, that HE doesn't accept the wisdom theology? That would be ironic in the light of the fact that the form of Job gives the impression of a return to that tradition in 42:10-17.

42:10-17 To the End

The prose returns here. An important question to broach is whether this prose section "cleans up" the loose ends of 42:1-9. Or, are there loose ends in 42:1-9? Or, even if you think there might not be loose ends, could you understand how an author in antiquity might have read 42:1-9 as leaving unresolved questions? Read the passage slowly. This is the text from which we get the phrase "Job's daughters," and the organization that grew up in the 19th century. Every class I have taught has had someone who was part of Job's Daughters as a girl. Why do you think that the narrative names the daughters and that Job gives each girl an equal inheritance when the law of Israel would not permit that at the time? Why do you think that Job's righteousness or fear of God is not mentioned here, while it is stressed so much in the early parts of the book? Has the author skillfully resolved all issues? If not, what remains?

I think that if you pose these questions and read the text sensitively, you will have more than enough to keep you for an hour. Good luck, and happy studying!

1788