4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 286

God’s Speeches, Job’s Responses,

and the Problem of Coherence
in the Book of Job: Sapiential
Pedagogy Revisited

DANIEL TIMMER
FAREL Faculté de théologie réformée
Montreal, QC H3G 2C6, Canada

THE BOOK OF JOB poses unique challenges for the interpreter. As a result,
David J. A. Clines is able to identify at least four interpretative approaches to the
book, none of which agrees with the others as to the essence of the book’s message:
seeing the man Job as the ideal patient sufferer, seeing him “as the champion of rea-
son against dogma,” seeing him as “the victim of a cruel and absurd world,” and
seeing the Book of Job in the context of Israelite wisdom.1 The hermeneutical
questions that render the book’s interpretation difficult are evident also in its var-
ious sections, perhaps nowhere more so than in Yhwh’s speeches near the book’s
denouement: Leo G. Perdue musters eight divergent understandings of these
speeches alone.2 Despite these difficulties, I take up the challenge issued by
William P. Brown regarding the importance of the divine speeches:
Given the elusive nature of the speeches and the negative assessment of some inter-
preters, it is tempting to be satisfied with the simple fact that God appears to Job. . . .

My thanks go to several of CBQ’s associate editors for their helpful comments on an earlier
draft of this article.
1 David J. A. Clines, “Why Is There a Book of Job, and What Does It Do to You If You Read

It?” in The Book of Job (ed. W. A. M. Beuken; BETL 114; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994)
1-20, esp. 14-17.
2 Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt: Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job (JSOTSup 29;

Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 197-98.

286
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 287

GOD’S SPEECHES, JOB’S RESPONSES 287

But clearly the Joban poet found the content of the divine speeches, along with the epi-
logue, sufficient in providing a climactic resolution to Job’s situation.3

In probing the contribution of the divine speeches to the book’s message, I

address two interrelated questions: Why do Yhwh’s speeches have the effect that
they do on Job, and how is Job’s response to the divine speeches related to God’s
evaluation of him in 42:7? I examine the two cycles of speeches in 38:1–42:6 (each
a speech of Yhwh and a reply of Job) and then explore how they contribute to
Yhwh’s final evaluation of Job in the epilogue (esp. 42:7).4

I. Is the Book of Job Coherent?

As Brown’s remarks imply, the relation of the poetic and narrative sections of
Job is determinative for how one construes the role of the divine speeches in the
book. An interpretative decision to judge the book incoherent implies that its var-
ious parts (and the sources behind them) are coherent when taken by themselves,
but that these parts cannot coexist as a whole without mutual contradiction. In
Joban studies this approach typically judges the narrative and poetic sections to be
out of harmony with one another and seeks to explain various tensions in the book
by diachronic means, such as multiple layers of redaction or editing.5 But against
this view it can be argued that at numerous points the contradictions or irreconcil-
able differences between the narrative and poetic sections are in fact susceptible
of resolution, allowing for at least partial integration of the book’s parts.6 This lat-
ter type of approach can be classified as generally synchronic; it tries to account
for the diversity in the book without appealing to hypothetical diachronic elements.
But are synchronic and diachronic approaches fundamentally incompatible?
And how does each treat the aspects of a given text that seem to favor the assump-
tions of the other? V. Philips Long has argued that “considerable common ground”
exists between diachronic and synchronic methods, since both begin with the text
as a whole.7 This is patently the case for synchronic readings, but is no less true of

3 William P. Brown, Character in Crisis: A Fresh Approach to the Wisdom Literature of the

Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 89-90.

4 For an extensive bibliography on the divine speeches in Job, see Jean Lévêque,

“L’interprétation des discours de YHWH (Job 38,1–42,6),” in Book of Job (ed. Beuken), 203-22, esp.
203 n. 1.
5 For example, the recent study of Wolf-Dieter Syring, Hiob und sein Anwalt: Die Prosatexte

des Hiobbuches und ihre Rolle in seiner Redaktions- und Rezeptionsgeschichte (BZAW 336; Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2004).
6 For example, Norman C. Habel, Job [OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985].
7 V. Philips Long, “Historiography of the Old Testament,” in The Face of Old Testament Stud-

ies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (ed. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold; Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1999) 145-75, here 162. Throughout this article, I use the term “diachronic” to define the
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 288

288 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71, 2009

diachronic readings for the whole text supplies the reference point by which dif-
ferences thought to indicate sources may be identified. The essence of the differ-
ence between the two methods lies in the type of explanation a reader seeks for a
potential instance of textual incoherence, as John Barton explains:
Literary critics . . . generally see themselves as having a duty to persist with a holis-
tic approach until the whole text is in focus as a unified entity. . . . Source critics on
the other hand allow . . . suspicions to have full rein, and are content when they have
divided the text into sections each of which in itself has a coherent shape.8

The issue of coherence lies very near the center of the methodological bifur-
cation within Joban studies. Whether one sees two different “Gods” in the narra-
tive and poetic sections (as does Norman C. Habel), tension between Job’s
accusations of God and God’s final approbation of Job in 42:7 (as does Gerhard
von Rad), or merely some literary or theological infelicity (as does Daniel J.
O’Conner), each of these authors reaches different conclusions about the level of
coherence in the book.9 The issue is not simply whether the book in its present
form is a composite product. Editing, if understood as a later author placing a dia-
logue that treats theodicy from perspectives common to that time within the frame-
work of an earlier narrative, is entirely plausible from a literary and historical point
of view.10 The question that remains after discussion of the book’s sources is
whether the final redactor has produced an intelligible, integral work.11
I favor a synchronic reading of Job for several reasons. First, given the pri-
ority that inner-biblical parallels have over other sources, the presence elsewhere

method of “source critics” as described above by Long, while “synchronic” describes the method
of “literary critics” in the same statement.
8 John Barton, “Historical Criticism and Literary Interpretation: Is There Any Common

Ground?” in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D.

Goulder (ed. Stanley E. Porter, Paul M. Joyce, and David E. Orton; BIS 8; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 3-
15, here 7.
9 See Norman C. Habel, “In Defense of God the Sage,” in The Voice from the Whirlwind:

Interpreting the Book of Job (ed. Leo G. Perdue and W. Clark Gilpin; Nashville: Abingdon, 1992)
21-38, here 25-26; Gerhard von Rad, Wisdom in Israel (trans. James D. Martin; Nashville: Abing-
don, 1972) 226; and Daniel J. O’Conner, “The Cunning Hand: Repetitions in Job 42:7, 8,” ITQ 57
(1991) 14-25.
10 This is Samuel Terrien’s view (“The Yahweh Speeches and Job’s Responses,” RevExp 68

[1971] 497-509). More recently, for a diachronic explanation, see Syring, Hiob und sein Anwalt, and
for a literary approach to the function of the frame narrative in the book, see Michael Cheney, Dust,
Wind and Agony: Character, Speech and Genre in Job (ConBOT 36; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wik-
sell, 1994) 24-83.
11 Yair Hoffman (“The Relation between the Prologue and the Speech-Cycles in Job: A Recon-

sideration,” VT 31 [1981] 160-70) summarizes approaches to Job along these lines and argues that
the tensions between the prologue and the poetic sections in fact contribute to the book’s message
and aid its reception by a variety of readers.
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 289

GOD’S SPEECHES, JOB’S RESPONSES 289

in the canon of plots similar to that of Job merit notice as a significant precedent
in favor of Job in its current shape.12 What Jan Joosten calls the “macrostructure”
of Job (with unmerited suffering followed by an accusation of divine justice, divine
self-revelation to the sufferer, transformation of the sufferer’s comprehension of the
situation, and the sufferer’s subsequent surmounting of it) appears elsewhere in
Scripture. Joosten investigates Jeremiah 45 and 1 Kings 19 as very close analogues
to Job; Donald Gowan (using slightly different criteria) adds Habakkuk (esp.
1:2-3a, 13; 3:18); and James L. Crenshaw, Genesis 22.13 Second, there are several
comparable works from the ancient Near East in which the seemingly sinless hero
is brought into suffering and eventually restored: the Sumerian “Man and His
God,” the Akkadian “Dialogue between a Man and His God,” Ludlul Bel Nemeqi,
the Kirta Epic from Ugarit, the Hittite Tale of Appu, and the Egyptian Tale of the
Eloquent Peasant.14 Furthermore, the Tale of the Eloquent Peasant frames its dia-
logical center section—as does “Man and His God” its central section of first-
person speech—with a prose prologue and epilogue. The various ways in which
this extrabiblical corpus’s genres, forms, and contents parallel Job bolster the case
for tentatively approaching the book as an integral work. Insofar as I succeed here
in reconciling God’s disapproval of what Job said prior to the second divine speech
with God’s approval of Job’s words in 42:7, without suppressing genuine tensions
in the book, it will remove a small obstacle to a reading of Job that appreciates the
work as a whole, not despite its complexity but because of it.15

12 Shemaryahu Talmon (“The ‘Comparative Method’ in Biblical Interpretation—Principles

and Problems,” in Congress Volume: Göttingen, 1977 [ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 29; Leiden: Brill,
1978] 320-56, here 350) argues thus: “The elucidation of difficult terms and ideas must be achieved
from the biblical books themselves, since they are the only reliable first-hand evidence which mir-
rors, albeit fragmentarily, the conceptual horizon of ancient Israel and the linguistic and literary
modes in which it found its expression.” See also William W. Hallo, “Ancient Near Eastern Texts
and Their Relevance for Biblical Exegesis,” in The Context of Scripture, vol. 1, Canonical Compo-
sitions from the Biblical World (Leiden: Brill, 1997) xxiii-xxviii.
13 Jan Joosten, “La macrostructure de livre de Job et quelques parallèles (Jérémie 45; 1 Rois

19),” in Book of Job (ed. Beuken), 400-404; Donald Gowan, “God’s Answer to Job: How Is It an
Answer?” HBT 8 (1986) 85-102, here 92-95 (describing the pattern as “1) complaint, 2) appear-
ance of the saving God, 3) expression of awe and praise”); and James L. Crenshaw, Defending God:
Biblical Responses to the Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 65-71, 216-17.
14 As noted by Marvin Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 15; New York:

Doubleday, 1965) lxii; Cheney, Dust, Wind and Agony, 34-35. On the Tale of the Eloquent Peasant,
see Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 1, The Old and Middle Kingdoms (Berke-
ley: University of California Press, 1973) 169-84; for “Man and His God,” see S. N. Kramer, ANET,
589-91, Context of Scripture, 1. 179; and on the juxtaposition of frame narratives and prose poetry
in ancient Near Eastern wisdom and related literature, see further Cheney, Dust, Wind and Agony,
33-41.
15 For a defense of the literary integrity of the two speeches and two responses, see Veronika

Kubina, Die Gottesreden im Buche Hiob (Freiburger Theologische Studien 115; Freiburg: Herder,
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 290

290 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71, 2009

II. The Antecedent Context of the Divine Speeches

The plot elements common to other biblical passages and the ancient Near
Eastern material just mentioned appear in Job as follows. In chaps. 1–37, God has
undertaken to prove that God’s servant Job, whose integrity and probity are with-
out parallel, does not serve for personal gain. This is to be demonstrated by a test,
initiated by the loss of Job’s possessions and intensified by the loss of his chil-
dren. Job’s response is initially in keeping with his extraordinary piety (the four-
fold characterization in 1:1 is unique in the Hebrew Bible), and twice he resigns
himself to the fact that both good and evil come from God’s hand (1:21; 2:10).16
These twin statements establish the justice of God and the innocence of Job up to
this point in the book, two judgments whose coexistence intimates the failure of
the theodicies that the friends will soon offer.
The third chapter describes a progression in Job’s response to his trial: his
curses “have the purpose of bringing destruction to his life as well as that of the
entire cosmos.”17 These imprecations show that the capacity of his faith to reckon
with his suffering has been eroded and that his perception of God is undergoing sig-
nificant changes. The form-critical differences between Job’s lament and those in
the Psalter show this clearly: Job omits the typical affirmation of trust and vow to
praise, and his initial addresses to God lack any mention of God’s character, rep-
utation, and past actions on Job’s behalf. Rather, “Job grounds his search for a res-
olution to his anguish in his own innocence more than in God’s mercy.”18 This
view clearly upsets Job’s friends, and from chap. 4 onward they debate with Job
the validity of the standard retribution theologies and their application to Job. In
the end Job rejects their efforts (27:2-6), and the friends give up (32:1).19 At that

1979) 115-23; and, more briefly, Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt, 200-201. Bruce Zuckerman (Job the
Silent: A Study in Historical Counterpoint [New York: Oxford University Press, 1991] 25-33) argues
against a linear reading of Job, but his inference that a later author’s framing of the poetic section
necessarily introduces contractions remains unproven, and his linguistic arguments are very diffi-
cult to make conclusively; see Ziony Zevit, “What a Difference a Year Makes: Can Biblical Texts
Be Dated Linguistically?” HS 47 (2006) 83-91; see also Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic
Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (ed. E. Fassberg and Avi Hurvitz; Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006).
16 The argument of Walter Vogels (“Job’s Empty Pious Slogans [Job 1,20-22; 2,8-10],” in

Book of Job [ed. Beuken], 369-76) falters because he omits from consideration without sufficient
warrant the unparalleled description of Job’s piety in 1:1.
17 Leo G. Perdue, “Metaphorical Theology in the Book of Job: Theological Anthropology in

the First Cycle of Job’s Speeches (Job 3; 6–7; 9–10),” in Book of Job (ed. Beuken), 129-56, here 145;
see further idem, “Job’s Assault on Creation,” HAR 10 (1986) 295-315.
18 John E. Hartley, “From Lament to Oath: A Study of Progression in the Speeches of Job,”

in Book of Job (ed. Beuken), 79-100, here 89-91.

19 Ernest W. Nicholson (“The Limits of Theodicy as a Theme of the Book of Job,” in Wisdom
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 291

GOD’S SPEECHES, JOB’S RESPONSES 291

point Job has begun to defend his integrity at the expense of God’s (32:2), and
Elihu comes in to set the stage for God (even as his doing so delays God’s arrival).

III. The First Speech and Its Effects (38:1–40:5)

Habel’s suggestion that 38:1 introduces “ironic fulfillment, thematic shock,
and structural integration” describes very well the placement and content of the
first divine speech.20 In light of Job’s bitter assertion in 9:17 (“he crushes me with
a whirlwind”), it is ironic that God does appear in a whirlwind but does not crush
Job. As Alex Luc has shown, God’s appearing in a storm to restore the righteous
Job also deviates from the larger biblical pattern in which such theophanies bring
punishment upon the wicked.21 Given Job’s desire to vindicate himself against
God’s anticipated prosecution, it is extremely important that God’s speeches in no
way address Job’s behavior before chap. 4—God implicitly asserts that Job is inno-
cent of any sin for which his difficulties might be the punishment.22 However,
38:2-3 gives God’s negative evaluation of an unspecified portion or aspect of Job’s
prior speeches: Job has “darkened” (hiphil participle of ‫שך‬ ׁ ‫ )ח‬Yhwh’s counsel
(‫)עצה‬, which belongs to the sphere of creation and world governance.23 As Perdue
observes, ‫“( מלין בלי־דעה‬words without knowledge” [38:2]) “do not simply point
to ignorance, but more importantly to foolish, chaotic language that subverts the
orders of creation and society.”24
But God’s speech should not be seen as expressing “disdain or contempt,” as
Perdue and others suggest.25 Yhwh has come not simply to notify Job of his erro-
neous speech, much less to berate him for it. Rather, Yhwh’s objective is Job’s
instruction. Job can answer all the questions that follow, as Yhwh’s reminder to Job
that “you know” (38:5) makes clear. Further, Michael V. Fox has established the

in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton [ed. John Day, Robert P. Gordon, and H. G. M.
Williamson; Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995] 71-82) describes the friends’
theodicies as reward/retribution, the flawed nature of humanity, and pedagogy.
20 Norman C. Habel, “The Design of Yahweh’s Speeches,” in Sitting with the Sages: Selected

Studies on the Book of Job (ed. Roy B. Zuck; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 411-19, here 412.
21 Alex Luc, “Storm and the Message of Job,” JSOT 87 (2000) 111-23, here 113-14. For puni-

tive theophanies, see Isa 40:24; 41:16; Jer 23:19; 30:23. Outside Job, in the three other times that
God answers from a locale (with ‫ ;ענה מן‬Pss 3:5; 20:7; 1 Chr 21:26), God grants the petitioner’s
request or delivers the petitioner.
22 Habel (“In Defense of God the Sage,” 37) and Terrien (“Yahweh Speeches,” 499-500) also

draw this conclusion.

23 Brown (Character, 92) suggests that this statement is “an ingenious wordplay on 3:4-7,”

where Job “had invoked darkness (‫שך‬ ׁ ‫ )ח‬to invade the day of his birth, indeed, creation itself.”
24 Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt, 203-4.
25 Leo G. Perdue, Wisdom and Creation: The Theology of Wisdom Literature (Nashville:

Abingdon, 1994) 169.

4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 292

292 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71, 2009

unique ability of rhetorical questions to mollify while conveying instruction and

eliciting response, insights that clarify the nature of this divine speech.26 This is
complemented by von Rad’s comparison of the first divine speech with Papyrus
Anastasi I, which shows that, with their shared form and content, both aim at
imparting wisdom through “catechetical questions.”27
Still, the softening effect of the rhetorical questions must not occlude the cor-
rective tone established by the presence of the imperatives and challenges that
open the speech. Nor should it be forgotten that, although technically Job knows
the answer to every question, that answer would invariably be spoken to God as
“I don’t know, only you do,” “I can’t, only you can,” or the like.

A. Yhwh’s Litany of Questions (38:4–39:30)

Habel has suggested that the two divine speeches in Job exhibit the basic
structure of a legal disputation: “formal summons . . . (38:2-3; 40:7-14), the defense
proper . . . (38:4ff.; 40:15ff.), and the rival’s retraction (40:3-5; 42:1-6).”28
Although the root ‫“( ריב‬strive, contend [legally]”) does occur once (40:2) and the
structure of the speeches is clearly disputational, the legal facet of the speeches is
not uniquely definitive of them. They are a means to an end, and the end neces-
sarily defines their primary intent.
If Yhwh is not simply out to win the court case, what then is Yhwh seeking
to accomplish in this first speech? The acts of divine creation begin the defense of
divine wisdom, surveying the creation of the cosmos in its four spheres of earth,
sea, heavens, and underworld (38:4-18). This is followed by descriptions of God’s
management of, and care for, the inanimate (38:19-38) and animate realms (38:39–
39:30). The divine creation of the cosmos underlines the transcendent nature of
the God whom Job has called to account and shows God’s expertise in construct-
ing the sphere in which Job is experiencing so much distress and pain, and which
Job finds filled with disorder on the moral level.
Habel suggests that the early mention of God’s status as the righteous judge
of the wicked (38:13, 15) is an “extended purpose clause” showing that creation
in all its vastness does not contain zones in which God’s justice is not regnant.29

26 Michael V. Fox, “Job 38 and God’s Rhetoric,” Semeia 19 (1981) 53-61, esp. 58-60. See
also von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 223-26.
27 Gerhard von Rad, “Job XXXVIII and Ancient Egyptian Wisdom,” in idem, The Problem of

the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966) 281-91, here 288-89.
28 Habel, “Design,” 415.
29 H. H. Schmid (“Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation: ‘Creation Theology’ as the Broad

Horizon of Biblical Theology,” in Creation in the Old Testament [ed. with an introduction by Bern-
hard W. Anderson; Issues in Religion and Theology 6; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 102-17, here
104) shows that in the ancient Near East “legal order belongs to the order of creation.”
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 293

GOD’S SPEECHES, JOB’S RESPONSES 293

It is significant in this connection that both images of the new day in 38:12-14 are
progressive, depicting “the gradual transition from the world of darkness to the
domain of Dawn.”30 These images may imply that even God’s perfect justice is not
applied all at once, which would show Job’s earlier conclusions about the absence
of retribution against the wicked to have been naive (9:24; 12:6).31 Similarly, the
selective divine granting of wisdom to creatures permits astonishing diversity in
creation. The description of the ostrich, for instance, shows that the universe as
created by divine wisdom nonetheless contains situations in which created wis-
dom encounters its limits and does not parallel the perfection of God’s governance
over the same imperfect situation. Similarly, the limited power and wisdom of
humanity mean that the sea (38:8-11) and the wild ox (39:9-12) are outside human
control and can prove dangerous.

B. Yhwh’s Censure and Job’s Response (40:1-5)

This subsection is the rhetorical summit of Yhwh’s first speech, as shown by
its terminal location, its introduction by a separate quotational frame, and the clus-
tering of disciplinary and argumentative terms (no such accusation closes the sec-
ond speech). Here Yhwh singles out for sharp censure Job’s charge (described with
several strong terms: ‫ריב‬, ‫“[ יסור‬correct”], ‫“[ יכח‬judge, reprove”]) that Yhwh had
abused the divine power over Job and nature, that is, Yhwh’s ‫( עצה‬40:2).
The sense of Job’s first response to God in 40:4-5 depends largely on the
meaning of ‫ קלל‬in 40:4 and the subsequent vow of silence following it. The pre-
ceding context, with God’s direct charge against Job (38:2-3), the narrator’s
removal of the other actors from the stage, and the direct address of God to Job
alone (38:1), puts squarely before the reader the contrast between Job and God. The
fact that for sixty-eight verses Yhwh has been establishing divine power, care,
knowledge, and sovereignty also suggests that Yhwh as self-revealed is the con-
trast for Job here. In the qal, ‫ קלל‬refers to swiftness or lightness, and only the lat-
ter definition is appropriate in this context. Excluding the uses that describe spatial
displacement or swiftness leaves only four attestations outside Job 40:4, all of
which lie within the semantic field of “to be despised; to reckon oneself insignif-
icant; to be small.”32 Given the lack of ‫“( בעיני‬in the eyes of”), we may also omit

30 Habel,Job, 540.
31 Perdue (Wisdom in Revolt, 215) argues that God also “repudiates the arguments of both the
friends who contended that the wild beasts were punished and destroyed by a retributive order that
protected the righteous (4:10-11) and Job who pointed to God’s oppression of creatures as evidence
of divine misrule (12:7-10).”
32 These are the contempt of Hagar for Sarah after Hagar conceives (Gen 16:4, 5), God’s low

esteem of those who despise God (1 Sam 2:30; there ‫ קלל‬is in parallel with ‫ בזה‬and an antonym of
the Piel of ‫)כבד‬, and God’s scorn for Nineveh (Nah 1:14). Also excluded from consideration are
occurrences describing the recession of water (with ‫ מן‬followed by ‫)על‬.
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 294

294 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71, 2009

from consideration the sense of “being despised (by another),” leaving only “to
reckon onself small or insignificant.”
Two additional factors contribute to the precise nuance of ‫ קלל‬here, and they
confirm this provisional gloss while imposing important limits on it. Job’s putting
his hand to his mouth and the sequence “once . . . twice . . . but no more,” which
closes his remarks, suggest at least that he wants to avoid worsening his predica-
ment. But although they may reflect some degree of dissatisfaction with his prior
statements, they notably fall short of a confession of impropriety.33 In light of these
considerations, “I am flawed and finite” closely approximates the meaning of ‫קלתי‬
here. It expresses Job’s awareness of his limitations before God’s interrogation as
well as his unwillingness to rescind his accusations of God. The problems still to
be resolved after the first speech and Job’s response are his failure to see God’s ‫עצה‬
and the consequent need for his relationship with God to be restored.

IV. The Second Speech and Its Effects (40:6–42:6)

What does the second divine speech add to the first? Both share brief refer-
ences to God’s judging the wicked (38:13, 15; 40:11-13) and God’s unbounded
interest in the animate creation (38:39–39:30; 40:15–41:34). Moreover, the second
speech reiterates neither the first’s treatment of God’s creation and maintenance of
the inanimate cosmos (38:4-38) nor its mention of God’s giving wisdom and under-
standing to humanity (38:36). What, then, is the raison d’être of the second speech?

A. The Introduction (40:6-14)

Though the opening words of the second divine speech echo those of the first,
its other elements show important developments. Yhwh’s first speech made but
one accusation, of darkening ‫ עצה‬by ignorant words; his second speech opens by
leveling a new charge against Job, and a two-pronged one at that (40:8). Yhwh is
displeased that Job has attempted to frustrate or annul (‫ )פרר‬divine justice (‫שפט‬ ׁ ‫)מ‬
and has condemned Yhwh (hiphil of ‫שע‬ ׁ ‫ )ר‬in order to vindicate himself (qal of
‫)צדק‬. When did Job do what God here accuses him of?
First, with regard to the frustrating of God’s justice, Job’s uses of ‫שפט‬
ׁ ‫מ‬, refer-
ring either to a court case or to justice as a standard, evince a noticeable shift in his
posture toward Yhwh’s justice and his own exoneration over the course of his
speeches. When Job uses ‫שפט‬ ׁ ‫ מ‬in the first cycle of speeches (9:19, 32; 13:18;

33 Putting a hand to one’s mouth in the context of dialogue interrupts objections (Judg 18:19,

collocated with ‫ש‬ׁ ‫ חר‬imperative), indicates astonishment (in parallel with ‫[ ׁשמם‬Job 21:5; also Mic
7:19]), or brings an end to proud and evil speech (Prov 30:32). Pope (Job, 157) mentions a
Mesopotamian cylinder seal from the Early Bronze period on which an individual puts his hand
over his mouth to indicate “awe and stupefaction.”
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 295

GOD’S SPEECHES, JOB’S RESPONSES 295

14:3), he asserts that humans cannot summon Yhwh to a day in court (hiphil of
‫)יעד‬, but rather that Yhwh brings (hiphil of ‫ )בוא‬humans into ‫מׁשפט‬. In the second
cycle, however, Job asserts that Yhwh ignores his shouts for ‫שפט‬ ׁ ‫( מ‬19:7), and in
the third cycle Job pledges that if he could only find Yhwh, he would himself bring
his case (‫שפט‬ ׁ ‫ )מ‬before Yhwh because Yhwh has perverted it (hiphil of ‫[ סור‬27:2]).
The same development is seen in Joban statements that do not utilize the lex-
eme ‫שפט‬ ׁ ‫ מ‬but nonetheless refer to Job’s legal case. Early in the first cycle, Job’s
agonies are severe enough to make him think that his end is near (6:11-13), but
when he identifies Yhwh as their ultimate cause (see the second person dialogue
with Yhwh in 7:11-21), he does so without alleging injustice—he asks questions
but goes no further. But this disposition does not last through even the first cycle:
in chap. 9, although Job acknowledges his need for a mediator or adjudicator, he
also voices doubts regarding divine justice (9:22, 24). Still, he contemplates hav-
ing his day in court at Yhwh’s pleasure, not his own (13:3, 22). By the second
cycle of speeches, Job wishes that the evidence of the crime (his own blood
[16:18]) not be covered, and in the third cycle and beyond Job reaches the position
he holds until the theophanies: if he could initiate the legal proceedings (31:35-37),
he would argue his case successfully (23:1-7).34
This survey provides the background for Yhwh’s opening charge against Job
in 40:8.35 Job’s initial reaction to his suffering is mixed (his imprecations in chap.
3 militate against Yhwh’s sovereignty, while other statements affirm his ‫שפט‬ ׁ ‫ מ‬or
‫)צדק‬, but over the course of the speeches he increasingly loses faith in Yhwh’s
sovereignty and good character and puts Yhwh in the dock. This, the divine
speeches show, is the fundamental flaw in Job’s response to his calamity. Job’s
maintaining his own integrity is doubtless proper; his error is seeing it as more
important than Yhwh’s: “Will you condemn me that you may be justified?”
(40:8b).36 Only by inverting the creature–creator relationship can Job follow to
the end his intended course of prosecuting and convicting God. Ironically, only
God can extricate Job from this problem, and the rest of the second divine speech
shows that Yhwh’s gracious intention is to bring Job back into a healthy relation-
ship with the deity.
As noted earlier, this introduction also includes, as does the first speech, sev-
eral descriptions of God as the judge of the wicked (40:11-13). God’s justice still

34 Hartley (“From Lament to Oath,” 94-97) discusses other aspects of the development in

Job’s understanding and application of justice.

35 The same process can be repeated with ‫צדק‬. In chap. 9 (vv. 2, 15, 20), Job admits that even

if he were ‫צדק‬,, he would incriminate himself as soon as he brought his case to Yhwh. By the end of
the third cycle, however, he is absolutely committed to maintaining his own ‫( צדק‬27:5), even in the
presence of Yhwh (31:35-37).
36 Here God echoes Job’s culminating accusation of the deity and assertion of his own integrity

in 27:2.
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 296

296 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71, 2009

exists as a norm above Job’s in 40:11-13. Although the question of power could be
turned aside by pleading Job’s creaturely status, his inability to “tread down the
wicked” implies an incapacity not merely to execute the sentence but even prop-
erly to identify those who merit such divine retribution.
The function of these assertions of divine justice and retribution (as defined
by this context, not by the friends!) is manifold. Most important, they restate that
God is, despite Job’s failure to perceive it, a righteous judge who is not delinquent
in applying justice. God as such does not explain Job’s suffering as a punishment
for prior sin, an important if implicit validation of Job’s claims of integrity. This
element reaches its apogee in God’s doubled blessing of Job in the epilogue, where
it delivers the coup de grâce to the friends’ retribution theology: even extreme suf-
fering can come without being a punishment for sin.

B. Yhwh’s Second Litany of Questions (40:15–41:26 [English 41:34])

This section of the second speech supplies the specifics for the more general
challenge given in its introduction. Yhwh will let Job put him in the dock if Job
comes to court as one who not only displays divine power (40:9-10) but also exer-
cises divine justice (40:11-13). Yhwh’s power, majesty, and ability to judge the
proud and wicked are divine characteristics, but Job cannot lay claim to any of
these things.37 “If Job has the capacity to govern the world with awesome splen-
dor, sustain retributive justice, execute immediate judgment on the wicked, and
imprison the underworld dead, then God will admit that Job is his equal and will
pay him homage as a god.”38
This defense of God’s superlative justice is followed by extensive descrip-
tions of Behemoth and Leviathan—beasts that were created by God, are controlled
by God alone, and illustrate God’s unique grandeur (see 40:19b; 41:11b, 33a).39
John G. Gammie has shown how Behemoth and Leviathan function as “didactic”

37 Lévêque (“L’interprétation,” 211) notes that ‫ הוד‬and ‫ הדר‬are collocated only once in describ-

ing a human (?) king (Ps 45:5); in every other case the pair is a uniquely divine description.
38 Habel, Job, 564; Perdue (Wisdom in Revolt, 219-20) insightfully remarks that Yhwh declares

a willingness to praise Job for the same activities that have made Job protest (mutely, even after the
first speech) Yhwh’s sovereignty. The Book of Job, however, does not make God’s justice necessarily
“immediate,” as Habel suggests.
39 The equation of the ancient Near East’s semantic content of these labels with that of the bib-

lical terms, as made by Bernard F. Batto and others, identifies them as “the traditional twin chaos
monsters representing the dry wasteland and the unformed ocean, respectively” (Bernard F. Batto,
Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition [Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
1992] 47-48) but is unnecessary here. Without denying the existence of some connotation, the
emphasis in the second divine speech is on these animals as created entities. Unlike the gods of the
ancient Near East, Yhwh is the sole creator and therefore immeasurably exceeds in strength and
wisdom what Yhwh creates, be it Behemoth or Job.
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 297

GOD’S SPEECHES, JOB’S RESPONSES 297

characters that exemplify the Joban themes of suffering and protest and thus speak
more directly to Job in his suffering than does the animal imagery of the first
speech. This didactic role is grounded in the comparison that the otherwise super-
fluous “like you” establishes between Job and Behemoth at the beginning of the
pericope (40:15) and more broadly in the instructive function that animals have
elsewhere in Job (characteristic of both divine speeches, and note further 4:7-11;
10:16; 12:7-8; 18:3; 35:11). Behemoth is presented, among other reasons, for the
manner in which it responds to challenges (cf. 40:23). “‘If the river wrongs him he
does not flee in fear, / he remains serene even if the waters reach up to his mouth.’
Here the poet seems to hold up Behemoth . . . as one who though subject to attack
responds with trust.”40
Leviathan, in its turn, despite the mythological connotations it carries here,
can plausibly be identified with the crocodile of the Nile. The way “Leviathan” is
hunted (40:25-26), its powerful jaws and fearsome teeth (40:26; 41:6), its hide
(41:7-9, 18-31, 22a), and its habits (41:22b) all correspond to the crocodile. As
with Behemoth, there are textual elements that suggest a comparison with Job: the
phrase “on the dust” (41:25) echoes Job’s position and condition (2:8; 30:19), and
Job’s social stature and familiarity with the regal sphere (3:14; 12:18; 29:9-10, 25;
31:37) are reminiscent of Leviathan’s status as “king of all majestic beasts” (41:34).
Gammie suggests that the similarity between Job and the crocodile is relevant to
Job’s situation especially because both are defended in many ways (in Job’s case,
by his speeches; his forceful rhetoric may be compared with the violent movement
of Leviathan [41:25, 31-32]), both cannot be conquered by anything in the crea-
turely realm (in Job’s case, by his friends and Elihu), and both are nonetheless
mortal.41
These two beasts are paraded before Job and constitute arguments to the effect
that Job cannot deny, much less abandon, his creaturely weakness and mortality.
Nor can he place himself outside Yhwh’s governance. Behemoth and Leviathan
exemplify what it is to live within their inherent limits, not merely accepting the
difficulties that this brings but even prospering within those boundaries.
A final aspect of the second speech is implicit but no less important on that
account: Yhwh does not let Job remain an opponent but pursues his reorientation.
“By continuing to question Job Yahweh is expressing his care for his servant. He
is seeking to overcome Job’s resistance by gently and persuasively leading him to
submission. . . . In his mercy Yahweh does not leave off speaking to Job until he

40 John G. Gammie, “Behemoth and Leviathan: On the Didactic and Theological Significance

of Job 40:15–41:26,” in Israelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor of Samuel
Terrien (ed. John G. Gammie et al.; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press for Union Theological Seminary,
1978) 217-31, here 220; note also the use of ‫ בטח‬in 40:23.
41 This paragraph summarizes Gammie’s argument in “Behemoth and Leviathan,” 223-25.
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 298

298 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71, 2009

humbles himself.”42 This manifestation of God’s mercy begins the restoration that
culminates at the end of the book.

C. Job’s Response (42:1-6)

How, then, did the apprehension of these various elements of divine peda-
gogy change Job? From Ellen J. van Wolde’s careful text-linguistic analysis of
42:1-3, it is clear that their burden (indeed, that of vv. 1-5) is Job’s regained appre-
ciation of various aspects of the differences between himself and God. “The dif-
ference between the knowledge and the speech of the second person ‘you’
(YHWH) and those of the first person ‘I’ (Job) is central in Job’s address: Job
shows how great the difference is between what ‘I’ know and what ‘you’ know,
between the things that ‘I’ say and that ‘you’ say.”43 Job has finally perceived what
was at issue in his response to his suffering: only interpretations of reality consis-
tent with that predicated by Yhwh are valid. Job’s words here establish a sharp
contrast between the Job of chaps. 3–31 and the Job who has profited from Yhwh’s
pedagogy.
Perdue has drawn attention to the echo of Gen 11:6 that Job uses early in his
response (42:2b), the Genesis pericope recounting how “humans, filled with hubris,
attempted to reject the sovereignty of Yahweh and the divine council by scaling the
heavens and gaining the power to issue edicts determining their own destiny.”44
Finding this description of humanity on Job’s lips makes very clear his radical
reevaluation of himself. In the same vein, Job humbly appropriates Yhwh’s
description of his previous speech in 42:3a, while in the rest of 42:3 Job equates
“hiding counsel” with his negative appraisals of God’s moral probity.
No less significant is what Job does not say once God has appeared to him:
he abandons his earlier intention to argue his case at length in God’s presence
(23:4-5). Having acquired wisdom through Yhwh’s speeches, Job distinguishes
between what he knows now and what he knew prior to the theophany.45 It is dif-
ficult to establish a clear opposition between seeing with the eyes and hearing with
the ears, since elsewhere in Job they are equated (13:1; 29:11). Nonetheless, Habel
properly draws attention to the contrast between the distant perception of wisdom
by Abaddon and Death (28:22) and its being seen directly by Yhwh (28:27) and
now by Job.46

42 John E. Hartley, The Book of Job (NICOT 17; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 518.
43 Ellen J. ‫ט‬an Wolde, “Job 42:1-6: The Reversal of Job,” in Book of Job (ed. Beuken), 223-
50, here 231.
44 Perdue, Wisdom in Revolt, 234.
45 Thomas F. Dailey (“‘Wondrously Far from Me’: The Wisdom of Job 42:2-3,” BZ 36 [1992]

261-64, here 263-64) suggests, with reference to Joüon §1130, that the perfect of ‫ נגד‬in 42:3 “places
itself as prior to” the later comprehension described by ‫ בין‬and ‫ידע‬.
46 Habel, Job, 582.
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 299

GOD’S SPEECHES, JOB’S RESPONSES 299

This brings us to the last and most challenging verse of Job’s response. The
principal difficulties in 42:6 center on the verbs ‫“( אמאס‬reject”?) and ‫נחמתי‬
(“repent”?).47 Yet one must first reckon with the masoretic accentuation, which
places an 'atnāhi after ‫ נחמתי‬and joins it to ‫ אמאס‬by a mûnāhi. Against the MT,
P. A. H. de Boer notes that “the LXX, Vulgate, 1QTgJob and Syriac all understood
‫ נחם על‬as a unity.”48 And although the two verbs could be understood as hendiadys
without an object regardless of the masoretic accentuation, van Wolde points out
that vv. 3 and 6 exhibit parallel structures, both having one entity serving as the
object for two verbs (‫ נפלאות‬is the object of both ‫ בין‬and ‫ ידע‬in 42:3).49 In light of
these points, the masoretic accentuation should be overlooked, with ‫על־עפר ואפר‬
(“concerning dust and ashes”) standing as the object of both ‫ אמאס‬and ‫נחמתי‬.
As for the verbs themselves, only the sense “reject, refuse” is tenable for the
qal of ‫ מאס‬in this context.50 The sense of ‫( נחם‬niphal) spans “repent, regret, be
sorry, comfort, console,” and its thirteen occurrences outside Job with a human
subject occur in a variety of syntactical situations.51 Among these, the majority
describe mourning after the death of another. Only two passages (Jer 8:6; 31:19)
are possible analogues for Job 42:6, and both clearly speak of repentance, first its
complete absence from the Judahites and subsequently its presence in the chas-
tised community, which utters “a speech of sorrow, regret, and repentance.”52

47 For bibliography, see Thomas F. Dailey, “And Yet He Repents—On Job 42,6,” ZAW 105

(1993) 205-9; and van Wolde, “Job 42:1-6,” 242 n. 37; the work of B. Lynne Newell, “Job: Repen-
tant or Rebellious?” in Sitting with the Sages (ed. Zuck), 441-56, seems to have been overlooked
undeservedly in this context.
48 P. A. H. de Boer, “Does Job Retract?” in idem, Selected Studies in Old Testament Exegesis

(ed. C. van Duin; OTSt 27; Leiden: Brill, 1991) 179-95, here 192.
49 Van Wolde, “Job 42:1-6,” 249-50.
50 See the helpful summary of interpretative issues around the interpretation of this verb in

John Briggs Curtis, “On Job’s Response to Yahweh,” JBL 98 (1979) 497-511, esp. 501-3. I take it
that ‫ מאס‬derives from ‫ מאס‬and not from ‫ ;מסס‬if the latter root is in fact correct, the sense of “sink
down, capitulate” would be appropriate and would not substantially affect the interpretation sug-
gested here.
51 Mike Butterworth, “‫נחם‬,” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

Exegesis (ed. W. VanGemeren; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) 3. 81-83; H. Simian-Yofre,
“‫נחם‬,” TDOT, 9. 340-55, here 342. The object may be marked by ‫( אל‬Judg 21:6), by ‫( ל‬Judg 21:15),
or by ‫( על‬2 Sam 13:39; Jer 8:6; 31:15; Ezek 14:22; 32:31). The verb may also appear without an
object, as in Gen 24:67; 38:12; Exod 13:17; Ps 77:3; Jer 31:19 (parallel to ‫ ספק‬+ ‫ על‬+ ‫ ;)ירך‬and
Ezek 31:16. Though it is common to restrict the discussion to uses of the verb with a human sub-
ject, its uses with a divine subject are nonetheless relevant and often mean “to retract a declared
action”; see H. Parunak, “A Semantic Survey of NHiM,” Bib 56 (1975) 512-32, esp. 525.
52 Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1998) 86-87. On Jer 8:6, see William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on Jeremiah (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1986, 1996) 1. 182-84; Brueggemann argues well for
the sense of “repent” in this passage, concluding: “that Judah refuses to turn back to a right relation
is the astonishing thing that bewilders the poet.” The phrase ‫שיתי‬
ׂ ‫ מה ע‬also occurs frequently in con-
texts of real or assumed guilt; see Num 22:28; 1 Sam 17:29; 20:1; 26:18; Mic 6:3; and esp. Jer 2:23.
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 300

300 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71, 2009

In addition to the two comparable cases from Jeremiah, other considerations

besides the definition of ‫ נחם‬point toward repentance on the part of Job. The fact
that Job later successfully intercedes with God for his friends puts him in very
exclusive company, among whom an attitude of revolt or disdain toward God does
not appear, however impassioned their intercession might become (e.g., Abraham,
Moses, Jeremiah).53 Further, it is difficult to imagine a disgruntled Job even want-
ing to pray for his friends, or thinking that praying to a fickle, unjust God on their
behalf would have any salutary effect. Ernest W. Nicholson sums the matter up
nicely: “If we take at face value Job’s responses to what God says, he is not only
humbled but enlightened and reconciled with God.”54 All this drives us toward an
understanding of ‫ נחם‬that can account for such a change, and nothing short of
repentance suffices.
Finally, how do the verbs and their object relate? Nowhere else is either verb
paired with ‫על־עפר ואפר‬, a phrase that occurs very rarely (Gen 18:27, describing
Abraham’s frailty and insignificance before God; Job 30:19, expressing low worth
or worthlessness). John Briggs Curtis has surveyed the early versions, Qumran,
and Ibn Ezra, and he finds that all its occurrences are well expressed by “man in
his frailty.”55 Such a sense is also in harmony with Job’s preceding words in 42:2-
5, where he contrasts himself with God. Job rejects and repents of what he, evi-
dencing the frailty of sinful humanity, had proposed concerning Yhwh’s ‫עצה‬,
‫מׁשפט‬, and ‫צדק‬. Thus, v. 6 can be rendered “Therefore I reject and repent con-
cerning my human frailty” (v. 6). In light of the divine speeches, this means that
Job repents primarily of his frailty as it came to expression at various points in his
speeches of chaps. 3–31, obscuring, doubting, and impugning God’s justice and
governance. Related to this main concern is a disavowal of his earlier assumption

That in Jer 8:6 Yhwh laments the absence of repentance for speaking “what is not right” (‫לוא־כן‬
‫ )ידברו‬makes this intertextual connection quite salient. William L. Holladay (Jeremiah 1: A Com-
mentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1–25 [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1986] 279) justifies this translation with reference to 2 Kgs 17:9 and Jer 23:10.
On 31:19, see Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 287; William McKane, Jeremiah, 2. 800-801; Holla-
day, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26–52 (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989) 190-91. Repentance and return are prominent in this passage, and the
promised restoration of repentant Judah in 31:20-22 merits special notice in the context of Job’s
response to the divine speeches and subsequent restoration.
53 Moshe Greenberg (Biblical Prose Prayer as a Window to the Popular Religion of Ancient

Israel [Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983])
shows that such prayers consistently portray God as just, trustworthy, and capable of being per-
suaded; see also Samuel E. Balentine, Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine–Human
Dialogue (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and
Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994); Henning Graf Reventlow, Gebet im
Alten Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1986).
54 Nicholson, “Limits of Theodicy,” 80.
55 Curtis, “On Job’s Response,” 501.
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 301

GOD’S SPEECHES, JOB’S RESPONSES 301

that innocent suffering means that God’s justice has miscarried.56 With his con-
fession, Job “puts the whole world back into the hands of God, for whom it exists
and who alone supports it and sustains it. He . . . now knows that his destiny, too,
is well protected by this mysterious God.”57 Job makes this confession while still
on the ashes (cf. 2:8), establishing an inclusio that spans the prologue and the entire
poetic section.

V. God’s Speeches within the Book of Job

Since there is no third divine speech to Job, we may infer that Job’s response
in chap. 42 was the goal toward which God’s speeches were driving. But what,
then, of God’s apparently antithetical statement that Job “spoke what was right”
(42:7)? This, Manfred Oeming admits, “stellt die Ausleger vor harte Proben ihrer
Künste.”58
To what speech of Job is God here referring?59 This much is known of Job’s
words thus far: they were not sinful before chap. 3 (cf. 1:22; 2:10); an unspecified
portion of the statements made in chaps. 3–31 is refuted by Yhwh in the theo-
phanic speeches; and Job’s responses to Yhwh’s speeches (or at least that in 42:1-
6) are not the object of Yhwh’s censure in chaps. 38–41, since they follow it.
Keeping God’s approval of Job’s speeches in the prologue as a minimum, the com-
parison between the friends and Job may be based on one or both of two subse-
quent Joban speech sections: an unspecified portion of chaps. 3–31, or Job’s
responses to the divine speeches.
The meaning of ‫ אלי‬in 42:7, 8 is relevant to this question, since it is the only
grammatical element that describes (however vaguely) the speech of Job that God
found praiseworthy.60 Oeming provides a summary of the preposition’s use in Job

56 See Alison Lo, Job 28 as Rhetoric: An Analysis of Job 28 in the Context of Job 22–31
(VTSup 97; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 32-34.
57 Von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 225; Georg Fohrer (“Dialog und Kommunikation im Buche

Hiob,” in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament [ed. M. Gilbert; BETL 51; Leuven: Leuven University
Press, 1979] 219-30, esp. 229-30) also recognizes the relational aspect of Job’s restoration.
58 Manfred Oeming, “‘Ihr habt nicht recht von mir geredet wie mein Knecht Hiob’: Gottes

Schlusswort als Schlüssel zur Interpretation des Hiobsbuch und als kritische Anfrage an die mod-
erne Theologie,” EvT 60 (2000) 103-16, here 104. Cheney (Dust, Wind and Agony, 25-33) has shown
that the seams between a narrative frame and its contents are often points of prominent tension.
59 See Duck Woo Nam, “Job 42:7-9 and the Nature of God in the Book of Job” (Ph.D. diss.,

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2000) esp. 7-8, for a taxonomy of scholarly responses to this
question.
60 BHS notes that numerous Hebrew manuscripts attest ‫ בעבדי‬rather than ‫ כעבדי‬in both 42:7

and 42:8. Such a change would eliminate the comparative sense and affect the meaning noticeably,
but the evidence is not weighty enough for emendation: the Vg (sicut in both instances) and both
Rahlfs’s and the Göttingen LXX (ὥσπερ in 42:7, κατὰ τοῦ in 42:8) support the MT as it stands.
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 302

302 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71, 2009

and brings to the fore its two occurrences in v. 7, both of which he thinks require
the sense of “to.”61 He points out that the versions give, or at least accommodate,
such a sense for ‫ אלי‬and that they do not move in the direction of “regarding” (the
LXX has ἐνώπιόν μου in 42:7 and no preposition in 42:8; the Vg coram me in 42:7
and ad me in 42:8).62 Omitting quotational frames from consideration, the remain-
ing half-dozen or so attestations in Job bear out Oeming’s understanding that ‫אל‬
is locative and does not bear the sense of “regarding.”63
The preceding divine critique of Job’s words to and about God is another
important clue in determining the Joban speech to which in 42:7, 8 refers. Given
the extended concentration of the divine speeches on Job’s earlier words, no fur-
ther divine pronouncement on them is necessary.64 Indeed, it would be odd if
speech that is called into serious question in chaps. 38–41 were approved imme-
diately afterward.65 Unless one accepts not only a disjunction between the poetic
and prose portions of the book but also a redactor who has assembled these dishar-
monious elements without so much as pointing toward a solution to the interpre-
tative cul-de-sac they would create, the fact that God has already corrected Job for
his prior speech strongly suggests that whatever he says to Job afterward will deal
with what Job said to God after the divine speeches.
This interpretation is supported by the contrast that ‫“( נכונה‬what is right”
[42:7, 8]) and ‫“( נבלה‬folly” [Job 42:8]) establish between Job and his friends,
respectively. The instances of ‫ כון‬in the Hebrew Bible that deal with speech are lim-
ited to Deut 13:15; 17:4 (legal testimony regarding idolatry) and Ps 5:10. In all
three instances the issue concerns the trustworthiness of one’s speech, and in Psalm
5 it is contrasted with boasting, deceit, and rebellion against God. Consequently,
when used of Job’s speech, it denotes its truthfulness and may imply that such
speech constitutes part of a piety that trusts in the God who countenances no moral
wrongdoing (cf. Ps 5:6).
The root of ‫ נבלה‬occurs in its “fool(ish)” sense only two other times in Job.
A nominal form describes the suggestion of Job’s wife that he curse God and die

61 Oeming, “Ihr habt,” 112-14.

62 Some Latin dictionaries do in fact give “concerning” as a possible gloss for ad, though this
carries little weight for understanding the Hebrew text.
63 Of the roughly seventy-five instances in Job, none requires the sense of “concerning.” Fur-

ther, of the 465 or so occurrences of the collocation ‫ דבר‬+ ‫( אל‬with three or fewer words interven-
ing) in the Hebrew Bible, only one requires the nuance “regarding” (2 Sam 7:19; see the debatable
cases in 1 Sam 3:12; Jer 30:4; 33:14; 51:12, where “against” or “to” are probably satisfactory).
64 Ingo Kottsieper, “‘Thema verfehlt!’ Zur Kritik Gottes an den drei Freunden in Hiob 42,7-

9,” in Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. Markus
Witte; 2 vols.; BZAW 345; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2004) 2. 775-85, here 776.
65 See the representative attempts to reconcile this paradox made in S. R. Driver and G. B.

Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job together with a New Translation
(ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1921) 374; Habel, Job, 231, etc.
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 303

GOD’S SPEECHES, JOB’S RESPONSES 303

(2:10), and in 30:8 the phrase ‫ בני־נבל‬describes those who practice multiform
wickedness.66 Notably, the friends are not described as having said what is fool-
ish; rather, their folly is not having spoken truth, as Job did.67 Accordingly, under-
standing ‫ לא דברתם אלי נכונה‬in 42:7, 8 as “you have not spoken to me what is true”
indicates God’s displeasure with the friends’ lack of repentance in contrast to Job’s
recent volte-face. This would be inevitable if the friends witnessed the theophany
(and there is no reason to suppose that they did not), but even if they did not, God
implies that they had ample cause during their time with Job to repent both of hold-
ing their theological positions and of attempting to force them on Job, but they did
not.

VI. Conclusions and Implications

In the context of the theophanic speeches, this explanation respects God’s
desire not only to correct Job by the theophany but also to restore Job’s relation-
ship with God. In the Book of Job more broadly, it shows how elegantly and deci-
sively God deals with the audacious and erroneous theology that the friends had
foisted upon Job (e.g., Bildad’s callous accusation of Job’s recently deceased chil-
dren in 8:3-4).68 The subsequent sacrifice and prayer that Job is to offer on their
behalf reiterates the impropriety of their speech and the need for it to be repented
of, while it reaffirms Job’s restored relationship with God. Finally, the interpreta-
tion defended above rejects a strict retribution theology by affirming that Job had
not committed sins that God is punishing by sending afflictions.
A primary contribution of this interpretation of the divine speeches and Job’s
response to them is the presentation of a coherent but diachronic Job who changes
across the span of the book in response to his unprecedented experiences.69
Although at the outset Job is presented as beyond reproach, the severe test to which
he is put brings him into a crisis that changes him in significant and eventually
undesirable ways. Responding to these dynamics, God’s speeches cause him to
change yet again, so that at the book’s end Job is identical neither to the Job of the

66 Hartley (Job, 397-98) notes descriptions of fools in Isa 32:5-6 and Prov 17:7 similar to that

in Job 30:1-15.
67 Pace H. Strauß (Hiob 19,1–42,17 [BKAT 16/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,

2000] 397), who objects that this sense is not possible since Job’s speaking to God is contrasted
with the friends’ speaking to God, of which we have no record.
68 See the helpful critique of the friends’ theodicy in Crenshaw, Defending God, 120-27, 234-

36.
69 Such an understanding of Job is not in itself new; see, e.g., John C. Shelley, “Job 42:1-6:

God’s Bet and Job’s Repentance,” RevExp 89 (1992) 541-46; he sees Job passing through “a spiri-
tual crisis that leads [him] from El to Yahweh, a veritable revolution in the essential character of God
and a corresponding change in Job himself that issues in poignant repentance (42:16) [sic],” (p. 545).
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 304

304 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 71, 2009

prologue nor to the Job of the speeches. By chap. 42, Job’s knowledge of and rev-
erence for God have grown beyond even their remarkable stature in the prologue
and now include a more robust view of God’s justice and integrity.70 Job’s nega-
tive analysis of God’s wisdom in the poetic section as a destructive, obfuscating
force (e.g., 12:13-15, 24-25) is replaced by the recognition of its inscrutability as
well as its life-giving power. The diachronic elements inherent in the development
of Job’s character thus address the perceived tension between Job’s accusations of
God and God’s final approbation of him, something that troubled von Rad.71
The reading of Job advocated here also sheds light on biblical sapiential ped-
agogy, in both God’s instruction of Job and the book’s method of communicating
its message to its readers. The Book of Job maintains, especially in the divine
speeches and in chap. 28, that wisdom is beyond the reach of humankind unless it
is pursued in the context of reverence for Yhwh.72 Von Rad underlines the signif-
icance of this aspect of sapiential epistemology: “It is obvious that the fear of God
is regarded as something which is given precedence over all wisdom. . . . The the-
sis that all human knowledge comes back to the question about commitment to
God is a statement of penetrating perspicacity.”73 This reverence for Yhwh includes
the understanding that Yhwh cannot undermine divine justice by actions in creation
and providence.74 Furthermore, God’s speeches establish that Job is not capable of
understanding divine ‫ עצה‬even in the sphere of nature, much less in matters of
theodicy. Indeed, the latter is a subject that God does not even broach with Job,
leaving it solidly in the sphere of mystery. The divine speeches thus set limits to
the sapiential enterprise, especially by inculcating a reverence that exempts God
from definitive judgment and guards God’s unique status as the norm of norms. “La
sagesse, pour Job, sera d’admettre que Dieu peut être justifié sans être totalement
compris.”75
The Book of Job portrays reverence for Yhwh as a distinct characteristic of
Israelite wisdom and the fundamental presupposition of sapiential reflection. This

70 Von Rad’s explanation (Wisdom in Israel, 218) of human righteousness as something other

than complete moral perfection helps to establish the legitimacy of seeing Job as a student in an
advanced course in wisdom.
71 See von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 226.
72 Luc (“Storm,” passim) offers illuminating insights as to how God sees wisdom in things

(especially storms) that humans find incomprehensible and destructive; see also Fohrer’s more the-
ological and anthropological remarks (“Dialog,” 229-30).
73 Von Rad, Wisdom in Israel, 67.
74 David J. A. Clines’s assertion (“‘The Fear of the Lord Is Wisdom’ [Job 28:28]: A Semantic

and Contextual Study,” in Job 28: Cognition in Context [ed. Ellen J. van Wolde; BIS 64; Leiden:
Brill, 2003] 57-92, here 65) is skeptical of Yhwh’s justice and integrity in the book but still remarks
that the “fear of the LORD” consistently includes the contextual understanding that Yhwh punishes
behavior that is not “appropriate” or that is “evil.”
75 Lévêque, “L’Interprétation,” 222.
4timmer:Layout 1 1/26/2009 2:51 PM Page 305

GOD’S SPEECHES, JOB’S RESPONSES 305

attachment to Yhwh, which is inviolable and which governs one’s interpretation of

reality, is the disposition that God’s speeches renewed in Job, leading to the restora-
tion of their relationship. Only on this basis could a deepened understanding of
God powerful enough to change Job’s perception of his situation be constructed.
One is reminded of Crenshaw’s thesis that precisely because Israelite sages real-
ized that it was God’s glory “to conceal essential reality” (Prov 25:2), they expe-
rienced “a gracious opening of the door [to wisdom and especially mystery] by
God.” In their search for wisdom, the sages “oscillated between two extremes,
trust in one’s ability to secure existence and dependence upon God’s mercy. Divine
compassion has the final word, whether communicated by Wisdom, God’s gra-
cious turning to humans, or simply affirmed.”76 It is in illuminating but not destroy-
ing this tension that the Book of Job finally coheres and makes its unique
contribution.

76 James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (rev. and enl. ed.; Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1998) 51. Note also R. E. Clements’s comments (“Wisdom and Old Tes-
tament Theology,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel [ed. Day et al.], 269-86, here 280) on the epistemo-
logical importance of reverence for God: “[Wisdom] perceives moral demands to be founded on
natural ‘laws,’ which its proponents believe will quickly approve themselves to the honestly enquir-
ing mind. Yet at the same time it appears to recognize that such ‘laws’ will not be recognized where
the fundamental disposition provided by the ‘fear of the Lord’ is lacking.”