# commentaries

text:
<p> Oh that I might have my request, that God would grant the thing that I long for-</p><p> This desire for death, effectively suicidal, continues the pouting and egoistic attitude noted on :6,7.</p>


text:
<p> even that it would please God to crush me; that He would let loose His hand, and cut me off!-</p><p> Job is careful not to speak of ending his own life, but he asks God to. Job appears to allude to the dialogue between God and Satan in the prologue, for he references the source of his sufferings as God's hand. Job was therefore aware of the dialogue; which makes sense, if the Satan figure was presenting the thoughts of the friends, who were the other "sons of God" of <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>. Job knew what they thought of him. The LXX makes the allusion to the prologue (<a href='B:220 2:6'>Job 2:6</a>) even clearer: "Let the Lord begin and wound me, but let him not utterly destroy me". This would then read as if Job doubted whether God would keep His side of the agreement made with the Satan.</p>


text:
<p> Be it still my consolation, yes, let me exult throughout my unending pain, that I have not denied the words of the Holy One-</p><p> The idea seems to be that Job longed for his death because he was comforted by the fact he had not hidden God's words; likewise he exalts in <a href='B:220 27:11'>Job 27:11</a> (s:w:) that he has not hidden God's words. Job was a prophet&nbsp;and is quoted as one in James 5. He had perhaps heard God's words from a "holy one", an Angel, and had taught them to others. By implication, he assumed that after death he would receive some credit for his righteousness. He had moved on to this from a simple desire for death. But aware of his righteousness, he reasons towards a belief in some future point of reward, as this was clearly not happening in this life. This becomes developed into a belief in a day of judgment and the final manifestation of God. And this happens ahead of time, as it were, in Yahweh's final manifestation at the end of the book; but this lead Job to resign all his own righteousness. See on :13; <a href='B:220 7:2'>Job 7:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p> What is my strength, that I should wait further? What is my end, that I should be patient?-</p><p> Job is definitely impatient and justified it as he justified his rash speaking (see on :5,12). And yet the patience of Job is quoted as proverbial (<a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a>). This may reflect how he was accounted righteous by God, and this final status was accepted by others. Or perhaps his patience refers to his endurance in faith, despite the fact that he was impatient during that endurance. He hardly comes over as patient in his speeches, but this was maybe seen as cosmetic failure compared to his final overall endurance in faith.</p>


text:
<p> Is my strength the strength of stones? Or is my flesh of brass?-</p><p> His argument is that he can't be perfectly patient because that would require superhuman strength. He blames the construction of his nature for his impatience (see on :11). And finally is led to repentance for this. It's rather like an alcoholic blaming his sin on his human nature.</p>


text:
<p> Isn’t it that I have no help in me, that wisdom is driven quite from me?-</p><p> LXX "Or have I not trusted in him? but help is far from me". If the LXX is correct then we see an extension of the argument developed on :10; he is confident that he has trusted in God, and yet no "help" from Him is forthcoming; and so he is driven to belief in a future day of Divine help, at some point after his death. That point becomes more developed in Job's understanding, as the day when God's appointed mediator shall stand upon the earth- the return of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p> To him who is ready to faint, kindness should be shown from his friend; even to him who forsakes the fear of the Almighty-</p><p> We can limit God's plans to save others in the ecclesia by our attitude to them- even if they become atheists we are not to withdraw human friendship from them. We can make others stumble from the path to His salvation. If a brother doesn’t show pity to his fellow brother, this can make the afflicted brother “forsake the fear of the Almighty” (<a href='B:220 6:14'>Job 6:14</a> RVmg:). Or we can read with GNB "In trouble like this I need loyal friends— whether I've forsaken God or not".</p>


text:
<p> My brothers have dealt deceitfully as a brook, as the channel of brooks that pass away-</p><p> "Deceitfully" is the word used about the exiles in Babylon (<a href='B:290 48:8'>Isa 48:8</a>) and how they treated their God and His servant (cp. Job). Job is as the righteous remnant, and the friends, the other "sons of God", as the apostate Jews, who could be saved by the intercession of the righteous.</p>


text:
<p> which are black by reason of the ice, in which the snow hides itself-</p><p> "Black" is 'turbid'. As in winter the rivers flowed freely, so the friends had promise of help, but when the heat came, they disappeared and were nowhere to be found (:17).</p>


text:
<p> In the dry season, they vanish. When it is hot, they are consumed out of their place-</p><p> See on :16. In <a href='B:220 24:19'>Job 24:19</a>, Job later sees the melting of the snow waters as representing the destruction of the wicked; he comes towards the conclusions that his friends, his fellow "sons of God" of <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>, were in fact sinners. Job, the righteous remnant amongst the captives, were to pray for and save the unspiritual majority; but they had to be convinced of how far astray their brethren really were.</p>


text:
<p> The caravans that travel beside them turn aside. They go up into the waste, and perish-</p><p> "Caravans" and "paths" are the same word (:19). The idea is that these friends were like caravans of travellers diverting to follow tracks towards water sources but not finding the water, because they had dried up; and they perished. This is how Job came to see the friends.</p>


text:
<p> The caravans of Tema looked. The companies of Sheba waited for them-</p><p> He associates his deceitful brethren (:15) with the troops of Tema and the companies of Sheba which had fallen upon his cattle at Satan's behest (<a href='B:220 1:15'>Job 1:15</a>). Job knew that the friends had power over his persecutors (:24). They, Job said, had caused calamity to fall upon him, and thereby overwhelmed their one-time friend (:27 AV mg:). They thought, as Satan did, that Job's spirituality was only a sham (:28). For more evidence that the friends were the satan, see on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>. There is reason to think that Eliphaz, the leader of the friends, may have been the specific individual referred to as 'satan' in the prologue. God singles him out for especial condemnation at the end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). After one of Eliphaz's speeches, Job responds with what appears to be a comment upon him, rather than God: "He hath made me weary: thou hast made desolate all my company. And thou hast filled me with wrinkles... he teareth me in his wrath, who hateth me (surely Job speaks here about Eliphaz, not God): he gnasheth upon me... mine enemy (satan) sharpeneth his eyes upon me. They (the astonished friends?) have gaped upon me with their mouth, they have smitten me…they have gathered themselves together (as the friends did to Job) against me" (<a href='B:220 16:9-11'>Job 16:9-11</a>). Eliphaz was a Temanite, from where Job's afflicters came. See on :22.</p>


text:
<p> They were distressed because they were confident. They came there, and were confounded-</p><p> LXX "They too that trust in cities and riches shall come to shame". But see on :18.</p>


text:
<p> For now you are nothing. You see a terror, and are afraid-</p><p> LXX "But ye also have come to me without pity; so that beholding my wound ye are afraid"; GNB "You are like those streams to me, you see my fate and draw back in fear".</p>


text:
<p> Did I say, ‘Give to me?’ or, ‘Offer a present for me from your substance?’-</p><p> Perhaps there was the idea that Job had obtained his wealth from the friends and they were justified in seeking to take it back; see on :19.</p>


text:
<p> or, ‘Deliver me from the adversary’s hand?’ or, ‘Redeem me from the hand of the oppressors?’-</p><p> I suggested on :19 that the friends themselves were involved in the work of the hand of the satan / adversary. But Job never asked them to 'stop'.</p>


text:
<p> Teach me, and I will hold my peace. Cause me to understand wherein I have erred-</p><p> Job's sacrifice of a truly broken spirit was worth more than thousands of apposite words. Job had dimly imagined that this would be so: "Teach me, and I will hold my tongue; and cause me to understand wherein I have erred" (6:24). When Elihu did teach him and show him that he was erring by nature rather than specific sin, Job truly held his tongue: "I will lay mine hand upon my mouth... I will not answer... I will proceed no further" (<a href='B:220 40:4-5'>Job 40:4-5</a>; notice the threefold repetition). This is one of several examples of Job knowing the truth in abstract theory, but not appreciating it until the mixture of reflection on his trials and Elihu / Jesus, brought it home.</p>


text:
<p> How forcible are words of uprightness! But your reproof, what does it reprove?-</p><p> This experience led Job to long for "words of uprightness", and thereby he came to be ready for the final revelation of God's words at the end of the book. Likewise our disillusion with human words and relationships leads us to be the more eager and ready for God's revelation. The very phrase "words of uprightness" are only found when Elihu appears and claims to speak "words of uprightness" (<a href='B:220 33:3'>Job 33:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Do you intend to reprove words, since the speeches of one who is desperate are as wind?-</p><p> Job seems to here place himself beyond reproof; as if he considers his desperation to mean that therefore whatever he says can't be reproved, because the weight of his sufferings meant that he was justified in saying anything. This is discussed and exemplified more on :5, and it is this continual self-justification which has to be humbled in God's final appearance at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> Yes, you would even cast lots for the fatherless, and make merchandise of your friend-</p><p> See on :19. Job had worked his way up in the world (perhaps from being an orphan, "fatherless", parallel with "your friend") without consciously seeking prosperity (<a href='B:220 1:10'>Job 1:10</a> AVmg:; <a href='B:220 8:7'>Job 8:7</a>; <a href='B:220 31:25'>Job 31:25</a>), and had shared his blessings with others; he realized at least in theory the weakness of his nature; and yet when he examined himself, he really didn't think he was too monstrous a sinner. The Lord Jesus likewise, the ultimate "suffering servant", was humanly fatherless.</p>


text:
<p> Now therefore be pleased to look at me, for surely I shall not lie to your face-</p><p> It seems the friends could not look Job in the face. That may not just have been because of the awful nature of his disease, but because of a bad conscience, seeing perhaps they were behind the things which came upon Job; see on :19. This is the very picture of the suffering servant in <a href='B:290 52:14'>Isa 52:14</a>, upon whose faces men could not look.</p>


text:
<p> Please rethink. Let there be no injustice. Yes, think again. My cause is righteous-</p><p> Job implies they were being unjust. The issue of who was "just" or not is a major theme in Job (continued in :30). In this lies the significance of the Lord's final appearance, to convict all of their sin, and teach that only His justification of men is worth anything. All self-justification is meaningless at best, and effectively putting man above God.</p>


text:
<p> Is there injustice on my tongue?-</p><p> See on :29. Job does later repent of his words and place his hand upon his mouth. But these words on another level make him a type of the Lord Jesus, the ultimate "suffering servant", who could ask "Which of you convinces me of sin?", whose words were perfect:&nbsp;Can’t my taste discern mischievous things?- This could be implying that his sufferings had not robbed him of his ability to sense right and wrong. If indeed the friends were connected with the Satan figure, and were responsible for the sufferings which came upon Job (see on :19), then he may be implying that despite his illness, he is quite aware of what is going on.</p>


text:
<p> Isn’t a man forced to labour on earth? Aren’t his days like the days of a hired hand?-</p><p> LXX "Is not the life of man upon earth a state of trial?"; GNB "Human life is like forced army service, like a life of hard manual labor".</p><p>Isaiah’s prophecies of the restoration and the Kingdom are shot full of allusions back to Job. The cry that Zion’s warfare or “appointed time” is now ended (<a href='B:290 40:2'>Isa 40:2</a>) is taken straight out of <a href='B:220 7:1'>Job 7:1</a>; indeed, <a href='B:220 7:3-7'>Job 7:3-7</a> describes Job’s haggard life in the same terms as Israel in dispersion are described in Isaiah 40. The point being, that Job’s eventual re-conversion and salvation is a pattern for that of all God’s people.</p><p>Job came to recognize that every moment he existed was a trial to him, sent by his satan-Angel. Thus he complained "Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? are not his days also like the days of an hireling?" (7:1). The Hebrew for "appointed time" is exactly the same as for "host" as in hosts of Angels. This neatly connects the idea that the exact duration of his life was controlled by God's Angel-host, as was every trial which he experienced. This would be the work of the "wonderful numberer" Angel of <a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a> who controls all time periods. <a href='B:220 14:13-14'>Job 14:13-14</a> says the same: "O that Thou wouldest hide me&nbsp; in the grave... if a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come". "What is man that Thou dost magnify him? and that Thou shouldest set Thy heart upon him? (lit. 'consider him')" (7:17). Thus Job sees God- whom he probably conceived of as an Angel- as considering him, whilst we are told earlier that satan was told to do this. A human satan considering Job would not in itself have brought the trials, and Job would not have complained so bitterly about a human being considering him. An Angelic satan setting his heart upon Job would account for this 'considering' alone leading to the trials. If it is argued that it is a human satan who set his heart on Job here in Job 7, then the context is hard, though not impossible, to square: "Thou dost magnify man... Thou preserver of men" (v. 20,21). There is some hint of physical movement by 'God' which would seem applicable to the Angel too: "Thou shouldest visit him... depart from me... let me alone" (v. 18,19).</p>


text:
<p> As a servant who earnestly desires the shadow, as a hireling who looks for his wages-</p><p> I noted on <a href='B:220 6:10'>Job 6:10</a> that Job felt that he was owed wages for his good works and teaching of God's word before his calamities began. He moves on from just wanting death to concluding that righteousness must have a reward; and if not in this life, then it must come at some point after life ends. This becomes developed into a belief in a day of judgment and the final manifestation of God. And this happens ahead of time, as it were, in Yahweh's final manifestation at the end of the book; but this lead Job to resign all his own righteousness.</p>


text:
<p> so am I made to possess months of misery, wearisome nights are appointed to me-</p><p> It is unlikely that Job's period of affliction lasted more than a year or so, and yet this is the part of his life and spiritual growth that is presented to us in such detail. At times Job thinks that he is likely to die that night; here he seems to imagine death coming after "months" of such nights. This is a realistic psychological picture of a suffering man.</p>


text:
<p> When I lie down, I say, ‘When shall I arise, and the night be gone?’ I toss and turn until the dawning of the day-</p><p> This is clearly the spirit of <a href='B:50 28:67'>Deu 28:67</a> "In the morning you will say, I wish it were evening! and at evening you will say, I wish it were morning! for the fear of your heart which you shall fear and for the sight of your eyes which you shall see". Job is clearly representative of Israel in their suffering.</p>


text:
<p> My flesh is clothed with worms and clods of dust. My skin closes up, and breaks out afresh-</p><p> The crusts forming over the sores appeared as "clods of dust", driving Job to appreciate his humanity as mere dust and ashes. The disease sounds like leprosy or elephantiasis, and connects him with the suffering Judah of <a href='B:290 1:6'>Isa 1:6</a>. Worms are typically associated with the decaying of a dead body, so it was as if Job experienced a living death.</p>


text:
<p> My days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle, and are spent without hope-</p><p> Originally, Job believed that his "hope" was predicated upon his upright ways (<a href='B:220 4:6'>Job 4:6</a>). But Job through his sufferings comes to feel he now has no "hope" (<a href='B:220 7:6'>Job 7:6</a>; <a href='B:220 14:19'>Job 14:19</a>; <a href='B:220 17:15'>Job 17:15</a>; <a href='B:220 19:10'>Job 19:10</a>). The friends suggest that Job had only the "hope" of the hypocrite, and this "hope" would perish (<a href='B:220 4:6'>Job 4:6</a>; <a href='B:220 8:13'>Job 8:13</a>; <a href='B:220 27:8'>Job 27:8</a>). Job had integrity, and on that basis he thought he had "hope". He suffered, and he lost that "hope", because he assumed that his sufferings meant that he was not in fact righteous. And yet he often reflects that he is righteous and is suffering unjustly. And so he is led to the realization that the "hope" of the righteous is by God's grace and not because of the "integrity of [Job's] ways". Judah in captivity likewise lost their "hope" (<a href='B:330 19:5'>Eze 19:5</a>; <a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>). But the message of the restoration prophets was that "there is hope in your end" (<a href='B:300 31:17'>Jer 31:17</a>); they were prisoners or exiles in "hope" (<a href='B:450 9:12'>Zec 9:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Oh remember that my life is a breath. My eye shall no more see good-</p><p> It's unclear whether this is addressed to the friends or to God, although I suggest on :8 that it is primarily God whom he has in view. Whatever, he is asking for pity to be shown to him because he has no "good" in front of him and his life is so short. See on <a href='B:220 8:2'>Job 8:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p> The eye of him who sees me shall see me no more. Your eyes shall be on me, but I shall not be-</p><p> Again it is hard to know whether Job addresses God, "Him who sees me", or the friends, "your eyes...". He goes on to address God in :12. He thinks that because his own eye shall no longer see (:7), therefore their eyes would not see him. Job often refers to God's eyes, perhaps a reference to the Angels, who I suggested were representing the satan figure (the friends?) in the court of heaven; see on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>. But he was to be taught that God doesn't see as man sees; our vision is not His.</p>


text:
<p> As the cloud is consumed and vanishes away, so he who goes down to Sheol shall come up no more-</p><p> That was how he felt, although already he has hinted that there must be a day of future reward after his death; and this becomes developed into a belief in a day of judgment and the final manifestation of God (<a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a>).</p>


text:
<p> He shall return no more to his house, neither shall his place know him any more-</p><p> That is true, in that there is no disembodied existence after death, and the dead don't return to haunt where they had once lived. This belief in the mortality of man was in sharp distinction to the beliefs of the primitive people amongst whom Job lived, and such understanding of death as unconsciousness and inactivity has always been characteristic of God's true people.</p>


text:
<p> Therefore I will not keep silent. I will speak in the anguish of my spirit, I will complain in the bitterness of my soul-</p><p> Job fell into the trap of thinking that his terrible situation somehow allowed him to speak whatever words came into his head. Job felt he hadn’t been ‘fed’ and so he was entitled to “bray” and “low” over his misfortune (<a href='B:220 6:5'>Job 6:5</a>). Because of the weight of his sufferings, he thereby justified the fact that "Therefore have my words been rash (<a href='B:220 6:3'>Job 6:3</a>). Likewise “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit” (<a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>). “I will give free course to my complaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul” (<a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a> RV). Zophar criticizes Job being “full of talk” and speaking “the multitude of words”, “for thou sayest, my doctrine is pure” (<a href='B:220 11:1-4'>Job 11:1-4</a>)- as if Job felt that because he held true doctrine he was justified in pouring out words as he did. “Why should I not be impatient?” (<a href='B:220 21:4'>Job 21:4</a> RV). “Today is my complaint bitter. My stroke is heavier than my groaning” (<a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>)- i:e. his complaining was due to his sufferings. “If I hold my peace, I shall give up the spirit” (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a> RVmg:). Job felt that the situation he was in forced him to use the words he did, and certainly justified it [we may well have used this reasoning ourselves when justifying the use of bad language]. But in the end, Elihu on God’s behalf rebuked him for his wrong words. And Job himself recognized: “I am vile. I will lay mine hand upon my mouth” in regret of his words (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). “Wherefore I loathe my words and repent” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:). He realized his mistake: he had thought that the situation </p><p>justified his words. Now he hung his head and admitted that there was no justification for speaking in the way he had. Especially in the matter of the tongue, we can so easily justify ourselves; ‘I only said / did it [or didn’t do it] because</p><p>’. And it is all so child-like. Once we leave off all attempts at self-justification, we will face up to our sins. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p> Am I a sea, or a sea monster, that You put a guard over me?-</p><p> There are several allusions in Job to Babylonian legends concerning Marduk – indicating that the book must have been re-written in Babylon with allusion to these legends. Thus the Enuma Elish 4:139,140 speaks of how Marduk limited the waters of Tiamat, and set up a bar and watchmen so that the waters wouldn’t go further than he permitted. But this very language is applied to God in <a href='B:220 7:12'>Job 7:12</a> and <a href='B:220 38:8-11'>Job 38:8-11</a>. One of the purposes of Job was to urge Judah that Yahweh was greater than Marduk, He and not Marduk was to be Israel’s God.</p>


text:
<p> When I say, ‘My bed shall comfort me. My couch shall ease my complaint’-</p><p> Sleep was no way of temporary relief. If indeed he had elephantiasis as suggested on :5, then this sleeplessness and psychological disturbance was associated with that disease.</p>


text:
<p> then You scare me with dreams, and terrify me through visions-</p><p> "Scare" is the word elsewhere translated 'dismay', and is used of how the exiles were urged not to be dismayed but to believe that God would indeed bring them from exile to restoration in His restored Kingdom (<a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>; <a href='B:300 46:27'>Jer 46:27</a>). Job begins by being dismayed / scared (<a href='B:220 7:14'>Job 7:14</a>), but develops to not be dismayed (<a href='B:220 31:34'>Job 31:34</a> s:w:), following the example of the Lord's battle horse (<a href='B:220 39:22'>Job 39:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p> so that my soul chooses strangling, death rather than to see my bones-</p><p> Clearly Job was suicidal although he later keeps himself in check, and instead pesters God to take his life. The agony in Job's bones looked forward to the experience of the Lord on the cross, where He saw His bones sticking out as He looked down upon them (<a href='B:230 22:17'>Psa 22:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p> I loathe my life-</p><p> This is the same word as "cast away". The grace of it all was that although he wanted to cast away his life (<a href='B:220 7:16'>Job 7:16</a>; <a href='B:220 9:21'>Job 9:21</a>), just as God's people cast away His covenant (<a href='B:290 8:6'>Isa 8:6</a>; <a href='B:290 30:12'>Isa 30:12</a>; <a href='B:300 6:19'>Jer 6:19</a>), God would not cast away His people in their exile and depression (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>), even if they cast him away. Job felt despised or cast away by God (<a href='B:220 10:14'>Job 10:14</a>) just as the exiles did, but this wasn't the case; God will not despise or cast away His servant people (<a href='B:220 36:5'>Job 36:5</a>; <a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a>; <a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a>).</p><p>I don’t want to live forever. Leave me alone, for my days are but a breath-</p><p> Continually, Job sees God and not any cosmic, evil 'Satan' figure as responsible for his sufferings. His momentary desire not to live forever suggests he knew that eternal life was on offer, but like the exiles, the weight of his sufferings caused him to lose interest in that hope. However we can understand him as meaning that he didn't want to live forever in this life, as he was.</p>


text:
<p> What is man, that You should magnify him-</p><p> Job was aware of the promises to Abraham, and he uses the same word used of how the name of Abraham and his seed would be magnified (<a href='B:10 12:2'>Gen 12:2</a>; <a href='B:10 19:19'>Gen 19:19</a>). But in his depression and suffering, he didn't want this, just as the exiles didn't. They too had to be reminded that God would magnify Himself through them (s:w. <a href='B:330 38:23'>Eze 38:23</a>; <a href='B:360 2:21'>Joe 2:21</a>; <a href='B:460 1:5'>Mal 1:5</a>) just as He finally did through Job.</p><p>That You should set Your mind on him-</p><p> "Hast thou considered (lit. 'set your heart upon') My servant Job::?" (<a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a> AV) God asked satan initially. Later Job complains to God "what is man, that You should magnify him?&nbsp; that You should set Your mind on him? (lit. 'consider him')". Thus Job sees God- whom he probably conceived of as an Angel- as considering him, whilst we are told earlier that satan / the adversary was told to do this. The&nbsp;human satan considering Job would not in itself have brought the trials, the Angel representative of the Satan did;&nbsp; Job would not have complained so bitterly to God about a human being 'considering' him. See on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p> that You should visit him every morning, and test him every moment?-</p><p> God is involved "every moment" in the life of His people; Job, presented as the suffering exiles, came to realize this (<a href='B:290 27:3'>Isa 27:3</a> cp. <a href='B:220 7:18'>Job 7:18</a> s:w:):God watered His vineyard "every moment" (<a href='B:290 27:3'>Isa 27:3</a> s:w:). The testing "every moment" was the struggle of the exiles, resolved in the promise of <a href='B:290 54:7'>Isa 54:7</a> "For a small moment have I forsaken you; but with great mercies will I gather you". But even in this small moment, He was watering them and caring for them.</p>


text:
<p> How long will You not look away from me, nor leave me alone until I swallow down my spittle?-</p><p> Again Job connects the eyes of God with his sufferings, asking God to look away from him, to thereby end the sufferings. And the eyes of God were His Angels, representing the Satan in the court of heaven (<a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p> If I have sinned, what do I do to You, You watcher of men?-</p><p> Job is full of self justification, as noted on :11. He now argues that the vastness of God means that He shouldn't be so sensitive to human sin. We marvel at God's total justification of Job, His imputation of righteousness, when He later states that Job had spoken rightly about Him (<a href='B:220 42:7-8'>Job 42:7-8</a>; although that statement may simply refer to Job's repentance). "You watcher of men" is yet another reference to God's angel-eyes every watching and noting sin; see on :19. But the idea is equally as AV "preserver" or 'keeper'. He didn't want that preserving or watching in his depression, as the exiles didn't; but the promise of the prophets was that God was indeed watching / preserving, in order to restore them- just as He did with Job (s:w. <a href='B:290 42:6'>Isa 42:6</a>; <a href='B:290 49:8'>Isa 49:8</a>; <a href='B:300 31:6'>Jer 31:6</a>).</p><p>Why have You set me as an archer’s target for You, so that I am a burden to myself?-</p><p> Eliphaz blames Job's troubles upon the “sons of Resheph” (<a href='B:220 5:7'>Job 5:7</a>); but Job’s response is that the source of the evil in his life is ultimately from God and not any such being. Eliphaz there speaks of how man’s trouble comes “as the sons of Resheph fly upwards”. Resheph was known as “the lord of the arrow” and the Ugaritic tablets associate him with archery (William J. Fulco, The Canaanite God Resep (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1976)). We would therefore be justified in reading in an ellipsis here: man’s trouble comes “as the [arrows of] the sons of Resheph fly upwards”. Job’s response is that “The arrows of the Almighty are in me” (<a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a>), and he lament that God is an archer using him as his target for practice (<a href='B:220 7:20'>Job 7:20</a>; <a href='B:220 16:12-13'>Job 16:12-13</a>). Job refuses to accept Eliphaz’s explanation that Job is a victim of Resheph’s arrows. For Job, if God is “the Almighty” then there is no space left for Resheph. Each blow he received, each arrow strike, was from God and not Resheph.</p>


text:
<p> Why do You not pardon my disobedience, and take away my iniquity?-</p><p> Job argues as if God can just do this anyway; but he fails to appreciate the role of repentance. And this is a major theme of the book, and a meaning of the very name "Job".</p><p>For now shall I lie down in the dust. You will seek me diligently, but I shall not be-&nbsp; Job expected his death to come at any moment (AV "Thou shalt seek me in the morning"). He felt that death would mean that no matter how hard God searched, He would not find Job. But Job was to be taught that God is the God of resurrection and final judgment, and therefore death is no escape from Him.</p>


text:
<p> Then Bildad the Shuhite answered-</p><p> Bildad largely repeats the arguments of Eliphaz, although more crudely, and with more appeal to the weight of past wisdom (:8-10).</p>


text:
<p> How long will you speak these things? Shall the words of your mouth be a mighty wind?-</p><p> This may be commentary upon Job's complaint that his life is but a breath which will soon pass (<a href='B:220 7:7'>Job 7:7</a>). The idea may be that indeed Job will soon die and will not be speaking these things for much longer; although Job considered himself just a temporary breath, his words were a mighty breath / wind because they were so serious in their accusations against God. And we learn from this that despite the frailty of the human condition, this doesn't justify wrong speaking.</p>


text:
<p> Does God pervert justice? Or does the Almighty pervert righteousness?-</p><p> The drama is set in patriarchal times, and so the allusion would be to the belief of Abraham that God as judge shall do right (<a href='B:10 18:25'>Gen 18:25</a>), and Job was wrong to imply otherwise. Job was implying otherwise, and so we conclude that God's later statement that Job had spoken right about Him (<a href='B:220 42:7-8'>Job 42:7-8</a>) must simply refer to Job's repentance.</p>


text:
<p> If your children have sinned against him, He has delivered them into the hand of their disobedience-</p><p> LXX "Sent them away to the place of their disobedience". This clearly has relevance to the exiles of Judah being sent off to Babylon, whose idols they had worshipped. Clearly Job's children had indeed sinned and been judged appropriately, and Job is here accused of wrongly justifying them- although so far, he has complained only of the injustice of his own judgments.</p>


text:
<p> If you want to seek God diligently, make your supplication to the Almighty-</p><p> GNB "But turn now and plead with Almighty God". Bildad, as noted on :1, is just repeating the words of Eliphaz (<a href='B:220 5:8'>Job 5:8</a>). Job had turned to God when afflicted, but the friends ignored that. They liked to imagine that was just mere words; for, they apparently reasoned, if someone seeks God and has repented, then God is going to solve their material problems. This is exactly the mistaken view of many within the Pentecostal movement today.</p>


text:
<p> If you were pure and upright, surely now He would awaken for you, and make the habitation of your righteousness prosperous-</p><p> The words of the friends suggest that their view was in fact that of the satan in the prologue. Satan obviously quibbled with God's pronunciation of Job as perfect and upright (<a href='B:220 1:8'>Job 1:8</a>). And Bildad likewise seems to allude to this when he comments concerning Job's downfall: "If thou wert pure and upright; surely now he would awake for thee" (8:6 AV). For more connections between the friends and the satan, see on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>.</p><p>God's opinion of Job was that he was "upright" (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a> s:w:). But as the drama progresses, the friends argue that if Job were in fact "upright" then God would not be afflicting him (<a href='B:220 4:7'>Job 4:7</a>; <a href='B:220 8:6'>Job 8:6</a> s:w:). Job absorbs this reasoning, and confesses that he is not "upright" and therefore cannot find God (<a href='B:220 23:7-8'>Job 23:7-8</a> s:w:). He absorbs false guilt and becomes influenced by the guilt placed upon him by his religion and "friends" amongst the "sons of God". See on :20.</p>


text:
<p> Though your beginning was small, yet your latter end would greatly increase-</p><p> Job's "latter end" did increase (s:w. <a href='B:220 42:12'>Job 42:12</a>) and Bildad lived to see it, and thereby realized how wrong his judgment had been. Bildad's words may be a recognition of how Job arose to wealth from small beginnings, implying that his "latter end" would only really increase if he were repentant and Godly (:5,6). The fact Job's latter end did increase was therefore evidence that God accepted him as Godly. The same word is used of the "latter end" of Israel, which will likewise be "increased" and blessed; and could have been so for the exiles had they followed the path of Job (<a href='B:290 41:22'>Isa 41:22</a>; <a href='B:290 46:10'>Isa 46:10</a>; <a href='B:300 29:11'>Jer 29:11</a>; <a href='B:300 31:17'>Jer 31:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Please inquire of past generations. Find out about the learning of their fathers-</p><p> Bildad stresses the power of traditional understanding (:8-10), and one of the themes of the book is the utter failure of traditional understandings of the time compared to the ultimate reality of God and His hand in human life. Perhaps he has in view the patriarchs, beginning from Abraham. But his fathers were idolaters, and Bildad is missing the point- that the Divine truths revealed to individuals are freestanding and independent of how long they lived or to whom they have listened.</p>


text:
<p> For we are but of yesterday, and know nothing, because our days on earth are a shadow-</p><p> The final appeal of God demonstrates that any man can at this point know and perceive His Truth, and man is not 'without knowledge' because he is out of step with ancient gurus, or ignorant of them. Perhaps Bildad may have in view the way that lifespans were far longer in the past, and therefore he considered the patriarchs wiser. But so many people live the same year every year, and the number of years lived isn't related to their wisdom.</p>


text:
<p> Shall they not teach you, tell you, and utter words out of their heart?-</p><p> This challenge to go and ask the old men of :8,9 may therefore be a reference to old sages who were alive at Job's time; for if the reference is to the patriarchs, then they were dead and could not have spoken to Job.</p>


text:
<p> Can the papyrus grow up without mire? Can the rushes grow without water?-</p><p> Bildad's idea is that Job's prosperity was like a quick growing papyrus which would soon wither (:12) because it had not enough water or mud. Bildad's reasoning is wrong, but clearly the Lord quarried His parable of the sower from parts of these ideas (see on :16 also). For He speaks of the man who has no "depth of earth" as the one who responds eagerly to the word sown, but falls away "when affliction of persecution arises for the word's sake" because he has 'no root in himself' (<a href='B:480 4:5'>Mar 4:5</a>; <a href='B:480 4:17'>Mar 4:17</a>). Bildad was therefore not simply saying that Job's persecution was because he had sinned; but rather he implies that Job had lost his faith after the persecution arose, because he had no real root in faith. In this Bildad was also wrong, for Job continually seeks to God in his tribulations. Behemoth was quite at home in the "mire "(s:w. <a href='B:220 40:21'>Job 40:21</a>); and the connection is in order to demonstrate that even the "mire" was created by God and just as He saved Jeremiah out of the mire of the dungeon, so He could save Job and the exiles. And the only other usage of the word is in the description of the healing of the "miry places" (<a href='B:330 47:11'>Eze 47:11</a>) if the exiles were responsive to the prophetic call to restore the temple and city made in Ezekiel 40-48:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p> While it is yet in its greenness, not cut down-</p><p> "Not cut down" suggests that Job had withered even before he was "cut down", just like the papyrus which is without mud and water to sustain it (:11). The word for "cut down" is used of the cutting down of Judah (<a href='B:330 17:4'>Eze 17:4</a>; <a href='B:330 17:22'>Eze 17:22</a>); Job is clearly the suffering servant who represents God's suffering people.</p><p>It withers before any other reed-</p><p> "Withers" is literally 'dried up'. The theme of 'drying up' is significant. Bildad considers Job to have been 'dried up' by God's judgment (<a href='B:220 8:12'>Job 8:12</a>), and the word is used of how God withered or dried up Judah at the hands of their invaders (<a href='B:300 12:4'>Jer 12:4</a>; <a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; <a href='B:330 17:9-10'>Eze 17:9-10</a>; <a href='B:330 17:24'>Eze 17:24</a>; <a href='B:450 11:17'>Zec 11:17</a>; <a href='B:310 4:8'>Lam 4:8</a>; <a href='B:290 40:7-8'>Isa 40:7-8</a> - although the prophetic word of God requiring their restoration would endure, despite their drying up). The dry bones of Judah in captivity were withered or dried up (<a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>). So Job's 'drying up' was again, a sharing in the representative suffering of God's people. Job's personal response to his 'drying up' was to reflect that God dries up waters and also sends them forth as floods (<a href='B:220 12:15'>Job 12:15</a> s:w:); He can give and He can take, just as Job had initially realized (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>). Just as He dried up Job / Israel, so He could abundantly send forth waters; just as He did at the Red Sea. Restoration and salvation was just as easy for Him as destruction, to put it another way. The drying up of Job was also understood by him as referring to his death (<a href='B:220 14:11'>Job 14:11</a>), but God could raise him from the dead and have a desire to him again (<a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). Eliphaz wrongly argues that the Divine 'drying up' of a person means permanent extinction (<a href='B:220 15:30'>Job 15:30</a>), as does Bildad (<a href='B:220 18:16'>Job 18:16</a>); but Job always sees the 'drying up' as part of a Divine action which also has a counterpart, the pouring out again of waters, or resurrection of the dried up, withered bones. Likewise Judah in captivity thought that their drying up, their dry bones, were incapable of revival (<a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>); but the message is that they could indeed be revived, and their drying up was but a presage to their eternal revival:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p> So are the paths of all who forget God. The hope of the godless man shall perish-</p><p> Given all Job's references to God, it is patently wrong to assume he was "Godless" and had 'forgotten God'; we are hereby warned as to the dangers of assuming someone is not 'of God' because of the path of logical which our theological positions have led us down. And yet there is still some truth in what Bildad says; those who "forget God" will indeed perish, and the phrase is used about Israel in <a href='B:50 32:18'>Deu 32:18</a>; <a href='B:230 106:21'>Psa 106:21</a>. Job was experiencing the sufferings of those who "forget God" even though he himself had most clearly not done so. In this we see the nature of representational suffering and intercession, which came true in its ultimate term in the Lord Jesus, the "suffering servant" based upon Job.</p>


text:
<p> whose confidence shall break apart, whose trust is in a spider’s web-</p><p> LXX "For his house shall be without inhabitants, and his tent shall prove a spider's web"- a reference to the collapse of the tent / house of Job's sons, killing them all.</p>


text:
<p> He shall lean on his house, but it shall not stand. He shall cling to it, but it shall not endure-</p><p> To 'lean upon' is to trust; Job was accused of leaning upon his own large "house", his family and literal home, which had now been taken away from him. That may have been partly true; but now he 'leaned' upon God alone. And the same was intended to be true of the exiles, who had 'leaned' upon human strength, Egypt especially (<a href='B:290 30:12'>Isa 30:12</a>; <a href='B:290 31:1'>Isa 31:1</a> s:w:), desperately clinging on to it; but when that was removed, they were to 'lean upon' God alone (<a href='B:290 50:10'>Isa 50:10</a> s:w:). Again, Job is Judah.</p>


text:
<p> He is green before the sun. His shoots go forth over his garden-</p><p> The picture is of a plant which initially grows quickly and prolifically, but is planted upon rocks (:17) and the sun will soon smite it. Again, as noted on :11, the Lord constructed His parable of the sower from this. The seed sown on stony ground was the man who responds enthusiastically initially, but then fades away once persecution arises (<a href='B:480 4:5'>Mar 4:5</a>; <a href='B:480 4:16-17'>Mar 4:16-17</a>). This was a picture of what happened to Israel; and Job was their representative, even though in the end, he was the good ground and did not faint under persecution.</p>


text:
<p> His roots are wrapped around the rock pile. He sees the place of stones-</p><p> Roots upon stones rather than earth continues the connection with the parable of the sower; see on :16.</p>


text:
<p> If he is destroyed from his place, then it shall deny him, saying, ‘I have not seen you’-</p><p> Judah in exile felt 'destroyed from their place', but the lesson of the dialogues in Job is that the friends were seeing things as they were at the moment, and failing to understand that God had a longer term program of restoration. Job would be the pattern for the exiles to follow- and they would return to their "place".</p>


text:
<p> Behold, this is the joy of his way: out of the earth, others shall spring-</p><p> The idea of others springing up in the place of the withered papyrus, also by the waterside, is to be found in the prophecies of the exiles' restoration (s:w. <a href='B:290 44:4'>Isa 44:4</a>; <a href='B:290 42:9'>Isa 42:9</a>; <a href='B:290 43:19'>Isa 43:19</a> etc:). Bildad was wrong to think that the cut down Job could never spring up again; he would, just as the exiles likewise could have sprung up to new life in the restored kingdom. The reasoning of the friends was that of the faithless Jews in exile.</p>


text:
<p> Behold, God will not cast away a blameless man-</p><p> Job appears to argue with this in his reply, insisting that he is not "blameless" or (AV) "perfect" (<a href='B:220 9:20-21'>Job 9:20-21</a>). He realizes through this false statement of Bildad's that in fact God cannot require utter perfection in order to save a man; and at the same time, He clearly blesses the sinful and brings calamity to the righteous. The conclusion therefore is that there is no direct connection between sin and present suffering; and the salvation of the righteous, none of who are "perfect", is by grace. And the narrative of the book of Job takes us beyond even that, suggesting that being blameless or perfect is only by God imputing that status to believers. For God's opinion of Job was that he was "blameless" (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). But as the drama progresses, Bildad argues that if Job were in fact "blameless" then God would not cast him away (<a href='B:220 8:20'>Job 8:20</a> s:w:). Job absorbs this reasoning, and confesses that he is not "blameless" (<a href='B:220 9:20-21'>Job 9:20-21</a> s:w:), and yet he is driven to the conclusion that the "blameless" and sinner are "destroyed together" by God (<a href='B:220 9:22'>Job 9:22</a> s:w:). It's quite possible that in depression and periods of suffering, we can come to have a lower view of ourselves than that which God has of us; just as at other times we can have a higher view of ourselves spiritually than we ought to. There is true guilt, the guilt which we should take, and false guilt. And Job seems to have picked up the false guilt thrown upon him by Bildad. We too need to learn this difference between false and true guilt. See on :6.</p><p>Neither will He uphold the evildoers-</p><p> Heb. 'hold the hand of evil-doers'. And yet this was exactly what God did to sinful Judah in captivity (<a href='B:290 41:13'>Isa 41:13</a>; <a href='B:290 42:6'>Isa 42:6</a>). That was all by grace, and grace is something which Bildad knew nothing of.</p>


text:
<p> He will still fill your mouth with laughter, your lips with shouting-</p><p> The language of the restored exiles having their mouths filled with laughter and singing when Yahweh brought again Zion- not because they were technically righteous, as Bildad reasoned, but by His grace.</p>


text:
<p> Those who hate you shall be clothed with shame. The tent of the wicked shall be no more- This was what ought to have happened to the friends, at the end. But it didn't, again by grace, because God accepted Job's intercession for them.</p>


text:
<p> Then Job answered-</p><p> The interpretation of this chapter depends upon discerning connections with the previous speech of Bildad.</p>


text:
<p> Truly I know that it is so, but how can man be just with God?-</p><p> We naturally ask what Job is agreeing with. Perhaps it is simply the statements immediately preceding this, that God will not cast away the blameless [AV "perfect"] and will judge sinners (<a href='B:220 8:19-21'>Job 8:19-21</a>). But Job has been driven further in his thinking- as an imperfect but relatively righteous man who is suffering the apparent judgment of God. And so he asks the question which is at the root of the book: "How can man be just with God?". Paul spends Romans 1-8 discussing this question, because it is at the heart of the Christian Gospel (see on :10). His answer is that which Job finally reasons himself towards, and which is finally revealed at the end by God's answers: by God's grace, through faith in imputed righteousness.</p>


text:
<p> If He wishes to contend with him, he can’t answer Him one time in a thousand-</p><p> The idea of God in legal contention is quite a theme of the restoration prophets. And the story of Job was, I have suggested, rewritten (under inspiration) for the exiles. God had contended with Judah and found them guilty (<a href='B:290 3:13'>Isa 3:13</a>; <a href='B:300 2:9'>Jer 2:9</a>), but He would not contend for ever (<a href='B:290 57:16'>Isa 57:16</a>). All contention or answer back against Him, counter accusing Him, placing God in the dock, was clearly wrong and useless (<a href='B:290 45:9'>Isa 45:9</a>):&nbsp; Instead He by grace would contend legally against the abusers of His people (<a href='B:290 49:25'>Isa 49:25</a>; <a href='B:290 51:22'>Isa 51:22</a>; <a href='B:300 50:34'>Jer 50:34</a>), so that the suffering servant would be justified / counted righteous by God, so that all legal contention against him was powerless (<a href='B:290 50:8'>Isa 50:8</a>). But this contention by God against Israel's enemies depended upon their repentance (<a href='B:400 7:9'>Mic 7:9</a>). All this was finally seen in Job's experience; he was set up as a pattern for the exiles to follow, although ultimately they didn't follow it to the end.</p><p>LXX "God would not hearken to him, so that he should answer to one of his charges of a thousand". Job appeals for ‘witnesses’ (<a href='B:220 9:33-35'>Job 9:33-35</a>; <a href='B:220 16:18-22'>Job 16:18-22</a>; <a href='B:220 19:20-27'>Job 19:20-27</a>), an advocate in Heaven (<a href='B:220 9:33'>Job 9:33</a>), denies his guilt and demands a legal list of his sins (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>), he wishes for God to come to trial (<a href='B:220 9:3'>Job 9:3</a>), and thus Job is described as a man who has taken out a ‘case’ with God (<a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>; <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>). Job 29-31 is effectively Job’s declaration of legal innocence and an appeal to God to hear his case more sympathetically (<a href='B:220 31:35'>Job 31:35</a>). And of course God pronounces a final legal verdict at the very end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>), in response to Job’s earlier plea: “Sleeplessly I wait for His reply” (<a href='B:220 16:22'>Job 16:22</a>). It’s as if the whole experience of Job was [at least partly] in order to test out the Canaanite theories of ‘Satan’, suffering and evil in the court of Heaven; and also the various theories which arose to explain Judah's captivity in Babylon. The friends represent the traditional views of evil, and often make reference to the myths of their day about ‘Satan’ figures. They speak as if they are the final court – Eliphaz speaks of how the judges and elders of their day, the “holy ones”, had concluded Job was guilty, and that they, the friends, were right: “To which of the holy ones will you appeal [legal language]?... we have [legally] examined this, and it [Job’s guilt] is true” (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>; <a href='B:220 5:27'>Job 5:27</a>). This is of great comfort to those who feel misjudged by man – above them in Heaven the ultimate Heavenly court is considering our case, and that is all that matters.</p>


text:
<p> God who is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who has hardened himself against Him, and prospered?-</p><p> As explained on :3, all attempts to put God in the dock by refusing to repent, or by simply accusing Him of injustice against sinners, were therefore inappropriate and pointless. Job is effectively denying Bildad's implication that Job had "hardened himself" against God. The same word is used of Pharaoh hardening himself against Yahweh (<a href='B:20 7:3'>Exo 7:3</a>). It was Israel who hardened themselves against God (<a href='B:50 10:16'>Deu 10:16</a>), leading to their exile (<a href='B:140 36:13'>2Ch 36:13</a>; <a href='B:160 9:29'>Neh 9:29</a>; <a href='B:300 19:15'>Jer 19:15</a>). Job was accused of having done this and was apparently treated as if he had done so; again in the spirit of the Lord Jesus, being treated as a sinner, experiencing the judgment for sin, when personally innocent.</p>


text:
<p> He removes the mountains, and they don’t know it, when He overturns them in His anger-</p><p> "Mountains" plural can be read as an intensive plural; the one great mountain which was to be removed into exile was as it were mount Zion; and it was the house of Judah which was to be overturned- but until "He come whose right it is" (<a href='B:330 23:25-27'>Eze 23:25-27</a>). The friends only dealt with present realities before their eyes, as did the exiles- they failed to see the longer term perspective. What was removed and overturned could be returned and revived. That was the Divine plan. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p> He shakes the earth out of its place. Its pillars tremble-</p><p> Language used of the shaking of the earth and heavens of Israel and Judah at the hands of their invaders. See on :5.</p>


text:
<p> He commands the sun, and it doesn’t rise, and seals up the stars-</p><p> Language used in the apocalyptic message of darkness and destruction of the kingdom of Judah (e.g. <a href='B:290 13:10'>Isa 13:10</a>). The simple point is that all that was done by the hand of God and His word of prophetic command, and not because of supernatural forces of radical evil in the cosmos.</p>


text:
<p> He alone stretches out the heavens, and treads on the back of Yam-</p><p> God is therefore seen as far greater than the legendary sea monster Yam; see on :24. "He alone" has power; He doesn't share power with any cosmic 'Satan' being, all is under His control.</p>


text:
<p> He makes the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, and the rooms of the south-</p><p> The surrounding culture believed (as many do today) that the stars influence life upon earth; Job emphasizes that God is the creator of the stars, and the present tense "makes" suggests that Job even perceived that the stars were not fixed but are part on an ongoing creation- something modern cosmology has finally come to realize. "The bear", Heb. 'the fool', alludes to the myth that there had been a rebellion against God in Heaven, and 'the bear' had been chained up in the sky for all to see. Job is deconstructing these myths; quite simply, God had "made" these constellations and placed them as they are by His sovereign power.</p>


text:
<p> He does great things past finding out; yes, marvellous things without number-</p><p> Job is moving closer to the great truths which God Himself will make explicit at His appearance at the end of the book. The friends assumed that meaning could easily be attached to event by "the wise"; whereas Job is driven to conclude by his sufferings that God's ways are "past finding out", and yet all of His ways are wonderful. I suggested on :2 that Paul's arguments in Romans 1-8 about 'how a man can be just with God' are consciously based upon the book of Job. In Romans 9-11 he cites Israel as the parade example of what he has been saying in chapters 1-8. And so it is appropriate that he concludes that section by quoting these words of Job: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past tracing out!" (<a href='B:520 11:33'>Rom 11:33</a>). The "marvellous things" which Job sensed were somehow going on are verbalized and made explicit in Romans- they are the things of God's saving grace.</p>


text:
<p> Behold, He goes by me, and I don’t see Him. He passes on also, but I don’t perceive Him-</p><p> This is not so much a glum lament as an extension of the argument of :10; God is doing wonderful things, things connected with His grace, which are beyond human comprehension. And Job cites his own lack of perception as proof enough of that.</p>


text:
<p> Behold, He snatches away-</p><p> Perhaps a reference to the snatching away of Job's cattle. He doggedly insists that all his sufferings were from God.</p><p>Who can hinder Him?-</p><p> The dramatic story of Job thrice uses the same phrase as in <a href='B:290 43:13'>Isa 43:13</a>, concluding that "who can hinder…?" God's way (<a href='B:220 9:12'>Job 9:12</a>; <a href='B:220 11:10'>Job 11:10</a>; <a href='B:220 23:13'>Job 23:13</a>). The exiles were to understand that no human opposition or discouragement can turn back or hinder God's purpose to save His people, even if they are as Job in suffering. His saving and restorative purpose will not be hindered, if we wish to identify with it.</p><p>Who will ask Him, ‘What are you doing?’- It is for God to ask this of sinful man (s:w. <a href='B:10 3:13'>Gen 3:13</a>; <a href='B:10 4:10'>Gen 4:10</a>); but not for man to demand this of God. It is for man to ask himself "What have I done?", and repent (s:w. <a href='B:300 8:6'>Jer 8:6</a>). And yet it could be argued that Job does indeed ask this of God, and has to lay his hand upon his mouth at the end. In the restoration context, Israel as the clay were not to ask the Divine potter "What are You doing?" (s:w. <a href='B:290 45:9'>Isa 45:9</a>). To do so would be to strive with our maker.</p>


text:
<p> God will not withdraw His anger. The cohorts of Rahab stoop under Him-</p><p> "Rahab" is a symbol of both Egypt and Babylon. GNB "God's anger is constant. He crushed his enemies who helped Rahab, the sea monster, oppose him". This language is clearly alluding to the helpers of Tiamat in the Babylonian myth; see on :24.</p>


text:
<p> How much less shall I answer Him, and choose my words to argue with Him?-</p><p> Job argues that God is sovereign in Heaven, with no evil rival (contrary to the view of the friends, and of many today). Therefore, who is a single man like Job to argue back with God?</p>


text:
<p> Though I were righteous, yet I wouldn’t answer Him. I would make supplication to my judge-</p><p> LXX "For though I be righteous, he will not hearken to me: I will intreat his judgment"; GNB "Though I am innocent, all I can do is beg for mercy from God my judge". The ambiguity of the original is perhaps intentional; for Job teeters between accepting his sinfulness, and yet claiming he is without sin. See on :35 for another example.</p>


text:
<p> If I had called, and He had answered me, yet I wouldn’t believe that He listened to my voice-</p><p> Here is spiritual depression in its classic form. The cup is always seen as half empty rather than half full. Even answered prayer is seen as irrelevant and no proof that the God who appears so distant has in fact responded to little me. The weight of suffering and the sense that we are suffering at God's hand "without cause" (:17), with no discernible meaning attached to event, outweighs all the evidence of His intense love and interest in us.</p>


text:
<p> For He bruises me with a storm, and multiplies my wounds without cause-</p><p> "Bruises" is the same word translated "bruise" in <a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a>, thus implying that he is receiving the result of the covenant in Eden for no reason. Therefore he is finally led to acceptance of his sinfulness. The Lord Jesus must have been sorely tempted to adopt the same false reasoning of His great antitype, but He surely had learnt the lesson that Job like Himself was suffering as representative of God's people and not as a consequence of personal sin. The references earlier in Job 9 to God spreading out the Heavens and creating the stars show Job's mind at this time was set early in Genesis (:8-10). See on <a href='B:220 10:9'>Job 10:9</a>; <a href='B:220 13:20-22'>Job 13:20-22</a>. This is yet another lesson which comes out of Job- we are suffering the results of living in a fallen creation. The only ultimate answer to that is through the work of the seed of the woman, the Lord Jesus, and the resolution is not going to come completely in this life.</p><p>God had accused the Satan figure of wanting to have Job suffer "without cause" (<a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a> s:w:). And here Job repeats this. Again we have the impression that he had been present at these discussions between the Satan and God; and the view of the Satan was in fact the view now of the friends, who effectively acted as the Satan figure who had influenced their thinking. The Lord Jesus likewise suffered "without cause" (<a href='B:230 69:4'>Psa 69:4</a>; <a href='B:230 109:3'>Psa 109:3</a> s:w:). Israel did suffer for a "cause" or reason- they had indeed sinned (s:w. <a href='B:330 6:10'>Eze 6:10</a>; <a href='B:330 14:23'>Eze 14:23</a>). Job as their representative, like the Lord Jesus, suffered those same judgments but without a cause.</p>


text:
<p> He will not allow me to catch my breath, but fills me with bitterness-</p><p> "Catch" is the usual word for "return"; the complaint is that God doesn't allow Job to die, to return his breath or spirit to Him in death. The suggestion is that because God has total control over the moment of human death, there is absolutely no point in arguing back with Him.</p>


text:
<p> If it is a matter of strength, behold, He is mighty! If of justice, ‘Who’, says He, ‘will summon me?’-</p><p> No human strength or argument about justice is relevant; God cannot be summoned to court by man and placed in the dock. Therefore, one can only accept His ways and trust that He is ultimately right. That isn't what Job explicitly says nor wishes to recognize at this point, but his sufferings and reflections upon them lead him to be just moments away from this conclusion. And when God expresses this more specifically at the end of the book, He is only verbalizing what Job has already come to tacitly realize. And for us too, God's revelation in His word often simply confirms the understandings He has led us to through our sufferings in life.</p>


text:
<p> Though I am righteous, my own mouth shall condemn me. Though I am blameless, it shall prove me perverse-</p><p> This can as well be rendered as AV "Though I be blameless", i:e. 'even if I were blameless', and likewise in :21. The ambiguity of the original is perhaps intentional; for Job teeters between accepting his sinfulness, and yet claiming he is without sin. See on :11,15 for other examples. God's opinion of Job was that he was "blameless" (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). But as the drama progresses, Bildad argues that if Job were in fact "blameless" then God would not cast him away (<a href='B:220 8:20'>Job 8:20</a> s:w:). Job absorbs this reasoning, and confesses that he is not "blameless" (<a href='B:220 9:20-21'>Job 9:20-21</a> s:w:), and yet he is driven to the conclusion that the "blameless" and sinner are "destroyed together" by God (<a href='B:220 9:22'>Job 9:22</a> s:w:). It's quite possible that in depression and periods of suffering, we can come to have a lower view of ourselves than that which God has of us; just as at other times we can have a higher view of ourselves spiritually than we ought to. There is true guilt, the guilt which we should take, and false guilt. And Job seems to have picked up the false guilt thrown upon him by Bildad. We too need to learn this difference between false and true guilt.</p><p>Those who are sure they won’t be condemned, taking the emblems with self-assurance, come together unto condemnation. Job knew this when he said that if he justifies himself, he will be condemned out of his own mouth (<a href='B:220 9:20'>Job 9:20</a> - he understood the idea of self-condemnation and judgment now). Isaiah also foresaw this, when he besought men (in the present tense): “Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty”, and then goes on to say that in the day of God’s final judgment, “[the rejected] shall go into the holes of the rock…for fear of the Lord and for the glory of His majesty when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth” (<a href='B:290 2:10-11'>Isa 2:10-11</a>; <a href='B:290 2:19-21'>Isa 2:19-21</a>). We must find a true, self-condemning humility now, unless it will be forced upon us at the judgment.</p>


text:
<p> I am blameless. I don’t respect myself-</p><p> LXX "For even if I have sinned, I know it not in my soul" may be alluded to by Paul in <a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a>. Even if we have a good conscience, it is not our conscience which will stand and judge us at the last day. It is before God's word that we stand or fall. Or perhaps along with GNB we can read this as simply the nadir of spiritual depression: "I am innocent, but I no longer care. I am sick of living. Nothing matters; innocent or guilty, God will destroy us".</p><p>Here and by implication in other places, Job effectively says that there is no point in serving God or striving for obedience to God. This is what the priests of Israel later said after the restoration, to whom this book was partly addressed in its later rewriting: "It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept His ordinance?" (<a href='B:460 3:14'>Mal 3:14</a>). Elihu claimed that Job "hath said, It profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself in God" (<a href='B:220 34:9'>Job 34:9</a>)- i:e. keep the commands of God, seeing that&nbsp; the Hebrew for " delight" often occurs in the context of obedience to the word. The Malachi passage is more specifically alluding to <a href='B:220 21:7'>Job 21:7</a>; <a href='B:220 21:15'>Job 21:15</a>: "What is the Almighty that we should serve Him? and what profit should we have, if we pray unto Him?". These are the words of Job, complaining about the prosperity of the wicked who had such an attitude, and the carefree happiness of their lives: "Their children dance. They take the timbrel and harp, and rejoice at the sound of the organ" (<a href='B:220 21:11-12'>Job 21:11-12</a>). It is in this that the Malachi context is so significant, for <a href='B:460 3:15'>Mal 3:15</a> continues: "We (the Israelites) call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up" . This was also Job's view. Notice that Job is probably implying that his prosperous three friends were among the wicked whom he is describing, thus associating them with the corrupt Jewish priesthood.</p><p>I despise my life-</p><p> The grace of it all was that although he wanted to cast away his life (<a href='B:220 7:16'>Job 7:16</a>; <a href='B:220 9:21'>Job 9:21</a>), just as God's people cast away His covenant (<a href='B:290 8:6'>Isa 8:6</a>; <a href='B:290 30:12'>Isa 30:12</a>; <a href='B:300 6:19'>Jer 6:19</a>), God would not cast away His people in their exile and depression (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>), even if they cast him away. Job felt despised or cast away by God (<a href='B:220 10:14'>Job 10:14</a>) just as the exiles did, but this wasn't the case; God will not despise or cast away His servant people (<a href='B:220 36:5'>Job 36:5</a>; <a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a>; <a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a>).</p>


text:
<p> It is all the same. Therefore I say that He destroys the blameless and the wicked-</p><p> This and :21 are in response to the statement in <a href='B:220 8:20'>Job 8:20</a> "Behold, God will not cast away a blameless man". Job appears to argue with this in his reply, insisting that he is not "blameless" or (AV) "perfect" (<a href='B:220 9:20-21'>Job 9:20-21</a>). He realizes through this false statement of Bildad's that in fact God cannot require utter perfection in order to save a man; and at the same time, He clearly blesses the sinful and brings calamity to the righteous. The conclusion therefore is that there is no direct connection between sin and present suffering; and the salvation of the righteous, none of who are "perfect", is by grace. And the narrative of the book of Job takes us beyond even that, suggesting that being blameless or perfect is only by God imputing that status to believers. For God's opinion of Job was that he was "blameless" (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). But as the drama progresses, Bildad argues that if Job were in fact "blameless" then God would not cast him away (<a href='B:220 8:20'>Job 8:20</a> s:w:). Job absorbs this reasoning, and confesses that he is not "blameless" (<a href='B:220 9:20-21'>Job 9:20-21</a> s:w:), and yet he is driven to the conclusion that the "blameless" and sinner are "destroyed together" by God (<a href='B:220 9:22'>Job 9:22</a> s:w:). It's quite possible that in depression and periods of suffering, we can come to have a lower view of ourselves than that which God has of us; just as at other times we can have a higher view of ourselves spiritually than we ought to. There is true guilt, the guilt which we should take, and false guilt. And Job seems to have picked up the false guilt thrown upon him by Bildad. We too need to learn this difference between false and true guilt. See on <a href='B:220 8:6'>Job 8:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p> If the scourge kills suddenly, He will mock at the trial of the innocent-</p><p> What began as what I called "the nadir of spiritual depression" in :21 now moves beyond that to outright false accusation towards God. For He does not mock at the "sudden" suffering of His people, such as Job experienced in the sudden loss of all he had. We marvel the more at God's final statement that Job had spoken rightly about Him (<a href='B:220 42:7-8'>Job 42:7-8</a>). That Divine comment may indeed simply be upon Job's statement of repentance. But all the same, we would expect God to clarify that was what He intended, and to offer some note that Job has indeed falsely accused Him. But God doesn't. He doesn't need to. He has completely justified Job by faith, clothing him with imputed righteousness. And His demonstration of His ways has in any case made the required point, and Job recognized that.</p>


text:
<p> The earth is given into the hand of the wicked. He covers the faces of its judges-</p><p> Again Job is driven towards an understanding that God will finally bring about a day of justice when He gives the earth into the hands of the righteous. He realizes that all creation is to some extent in his situation- groaning for the manifestation of the sons of God, as Paul puts it.</p><p>If it be not He, then who is it?-</p><p> I noted on <a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>; <a href='B:220 3:8'>Job 3:8</a> that a major theme in the book of Job is the deconstruction of the ‘satan’ myth. A key passage is <a href='B:220 9:24'>Job 9:24</a>: “If it be not he, who then is it?” (R:V:); or as the G:N:B. puts it: “If God didn’t do it, who did?”. After all the theories of ‘Who’s responsible for all this evil in Job’s life?’, Job concludes that the source simply has to be God – and not anyone else. If He truly is all powerful, then who else could ultimately be responsible? Job states that “the cohorts of Rahab [a Canaanite ‘Satan’ figure] shall stoop under [God]” (<a href='B:220 9:13'>Job 9:13</a>), clearly alluding to the helpers of Tiamat in the Babylonian myth. “God alone stretches out the heavens, and treads on the back of Yam” – the sea, or sea–monster (<a href='B:220 9:8'>Job 9:8</a>). See on <a href='B:220 10:8'>Job 10:8</a>.</p>


text:
<p> Now my days are swifter than a runner. They flee away, they see no good-</p><p> Seeing no good was the punishment upon God's exiled people because of their sins (s:w. <a href='B:300 17:6'>Jer 17:6</a>; <a href='B:300 29:32'>Jer 29:32</a>). Again we see Job suffering the judgment of sinners when he himself had not sinned. This was exactly what happened to the Lord on the cross.</p>


text:
<p> they have passed away as the swift ships, as the eagle that swoops on the prey-</p><p> Heb. "ships of reed", alluding to the swift skiffs on the river Nile. Perceiving how quickly life has sped by is typical of the thoughts of dying men. I argued on <a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a> that Job was indeed a historical person, and the language he uses in his depression and illness is poetically formulated, but all the same has absolute verisimilitude to the thoughts and feelings of an actual person in his situation.</p>


text:
<p> If I say, ‘I will forget my complaint, I will put off my sad face, and cheer up’-</p><p> As noted on :26, these thoughts are exactly true to life of a real historical person. He realizes that putting on a brave face and forgetting his sufferings for a moment- is just not going to work. He still suffers from a nagging sense of being wrong before God (:28), and it is this which is preparing the way for his final repentance at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> I am afraid of all my sorrows, I know that You will not hold me innocent-</p><p> LXX "I quake in all my limbs". That quaking was apparently in prospect of the future judgment which he feared, although at other times Job longs for that judgment day to come. This again as noted on :26 is absolutely psychologically credible. Job may be using the term translated "innocent" in the sense of 'acquitted' as it is in <a href='B:220 10:14'>Job 10:14</a>. He fears God will not forgive him at the final judgment; and this is all part of the build up towards the final bursting of the tension at the end of the book, when God appears, condemns Job and then justifies and restores him. And all Job's fears are proven ultimately unnecessary- but only because of God's grace:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p> I shall be condemned. Why then do I labour in vain?-</p><p> Job's reliance on works to bring justification with God is clearly seen here, as if to say 'If I've been condemned, all these good works I've done are vain- they won't give me the salvation I thought':&nbsp;This again is part of the build up towards the final declaration of salvation by grace which we find in God's final revelation at the end.</p>


text:
<p> If I wash myself with snow, and cleanse my hands with lye-</p><p> This was apparently the attitude of the exiles. The question "How can a man be just with God?" is the same question as 'How can a man ever be clean before a perfect God?', and is repeated in this form in <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>; <a href='B:220 25:5'>Job 25:5</a>:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; They had considered themselves cleansed whiter than snow because of their obedience to some parts of the Mosaic law (<a href='B:310 4:7'>Lam 4:7</a>), but failed to accept that such cleansing to be whiter than snow is only possible by doing what David did, and casting ourselves upon God's grace outside of justification by works (<a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a>). Job was to learn this lesson at the end. It was this offer which was made to Job just as it was to Judah under judgment (<a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p> yet You will plunge me in the ditch. My own clothes shall abhor me-</p><p> This again is Job allowing his depression to lead him to unreasonable statements about God, and not speaking right about Him. The fact we are sinners doesn't mean that God makes us dirty; we make our own clothes dirty. The word translated "ditch" is usually used in Job about the grave or "pit" (<a href='B:220 17:14'>Job 17:14</a>; <a href='B:220 33:18'>Job 33:18</a>; <a href='B:220 33:22'>Job 33:22</a>; <a href='B:220 33:24'>Job 33:24</a>; <a href='B:220 33:28'>Job 33:28</a>; <a href='B:220 33:30'>Job 33:30</a>); so the idea may be that all the same, for all his efforts to be righteous and cleanse his own sin, God will plunge Job into the grave at the end:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p> For He is not a man, as I am, that I should answer Him, that we should come together in judgment-</p><p> Job in his own righteousness and amateur attempts to fix up his own sins was unable to come "together" or "at one" with God in judgment. Job is driven to realize his need for outside help (:33), but by the nature of his situation that help needed to be somehow also "a man" who still could approach to God as his advocate. He was driven to his need for the Lord Jesus, who is presented as the ultimate answer to this need- a man of human nature, but sinless Son of God.</p>


text:
<p> There is no umpire between us, that might lay his hand on us both-</p><p> The word for "umpire" suggests 'one who is right', a reasoner, an advocate, one who pleads (s:w. <a href='B:220 16:21'>Job 16:21</a>), a reprover (<a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a> s:w:). Job's request is not simply for a mediator; he would have used a different word if so. He seems to want to put God in the dock, but knows this is not appropriate; he wants someone else to do this who can legitimately do it. And he is rebuked for this in <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p> Let Him take his rod away from me-</p><p> "Take His rod away" is the very same phrase used in <a href='B:10 49:10'>Gen 49:10</a>, promising that the sceptre (s:w. "rod") would not be taken away (s:w:) from Judah. Judah would always have God's rod or sceptre with them; David likewise takes comfort from the fact that God's "rod and staff" remained with him and were not taken away from him (<a href='B:230 23:4'>Psa 23:4</a> s:w:). We see here God's grace in not in fact answering every prayer of a depressed or misunderstanding believer; we can likely look back in our own lives and see examples of this. The exiles experienced God's "rod" (s:w. <a href='B:310 3:1'>Lam 3:1</a>), and only those who passed beneath it could enter the restored Kingdom (s:w. <a href='B:330 20:37'>Eze 20:37</a>). The desire to not experience the rod was therefore precluding a necessary step towards entrance into the Kingdom.</p><p>Let His terror not make me afraid-</p><p> Job repeats this fear in <a href='B:220 13:21'>Job 13:21</a>, and Elihu alludes to it when he uses the same phrase in assuring Job that his terror will not make Job afraid (<a href='B:220 33:7'>Job 33:7</a>). The terror is perhaps "the terror of the Lord", the fear of condemnation at the last day (so Paul uses the phrase, <a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a>). That terror should "persuade men" to accept grace, Paul argues. To have that terror unexperienced by men would mean they had no persuasion toward grace.</p>


text:
<p> then I would speak, and not fear Him; but I am not in such a position within myself- LXX "So shall I not be afraid, but I will speak: for I am not thus conscious of guilt". The ambiguity of the original is perhaps intentional; for Job teeters between accepting his sinfulness, and yet claiming he is without sin. See on :15 for another example.</p>


text:
<p> My soul is weary of my life. I will give free course to my complaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul-</p><p> Job fell into the trap of thinking that his terrible situation somehow allowed him to speak whatever words came into his head. Job felt he hadn’t been ‘fed’ and so he was entitled to “bray” and “low” over his misfortune (<a href='B:220 6:5'>Job 6:5</a>). Because of the weight of his sufferings, he thereby justified the fact that "Therefore have my words been rash (<a href='B:220 6:3'>Job 6:3</a>). Likewise “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit” (<a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>). “I will give free course to my complaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul” (<a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a> RV). Zophar criticizes Job being “full of talk” and speaking “the multitude of words”, “for thou sayest, my doctrine is pure” (<a href='B:220 11:1-4'>Job 11:1-4</a>)- as if Job felt that because he held true doctrine he was justified in pouring out words as he did. “Why should I not be impatient?” (<a href='B:220 21:4'>Job 21:4</a> RV). “Today is my complaint bitter. My stroke is heavier than my groaning” (<a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>)- i:e. his complaining was due to his sufferings. “If I hold my peace, I shall give up the spirit” (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a> RVmg:). Job felt that the situation he was in forced him to use the words he did, and certainly justified it [we may well have used this reasoning ourselves when justifying the use of bad language]. But in the end, Elihu on God’s behalf rebuked him for his wrong words. And Job himself recognized: “I am vile. I will lay mine hand upon my mouth” in regret of his words (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). “Wherefore I loathe my words and repent” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:). He realized his mistake: he had thought that the situation justified his words. Now he hung his head and admitted that there was no justification for speaking in the way he had. Especially in the matter of the tongue, we can so easily justify ourselves; ‘I only said / did it [or didn’t do it] because</p><p>’. And it is all so child-like. Once we leave off all attempts at self-justification, we will face up to our sins.</p>


text:
<p> I will tell God, ‘Do not condemn me. Show me why You contend with me-</p><p> This somewhat contradicts Job's earlier statements in Job 9 that he is indeed a sinner and therefore fears condemnation. He knows, therefore, why he is worthy of condemnation; but his underlying sense that he is in fact innocent keeps coming out. And this is something we probably can identify with; it is one thing to admit that "I am a sinner", or "We are all sinners"; but quite another to accept the consequences and meaning of that, when compared to society we may appear very righteous.</p>


text:
<p> Is it good to You that You should oppress, that You should despise the work of Your hands, and smile on the counsel of the wicked?-</p><p> Job felt despised or cast away by God (<a href='B:220 10:14'>Job 10:14</a>) just as the exiles did, but this wasn't the case; God will not despise or cast away His servant people (<a href='B:220 36:5'>Job 36:5</a>; <a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a>; <a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a>). The grace of it all was that although he wanted to cast away his life (<a href='B:220 7:16'>Job 7:16</a>; <a href='B:220 9:21'>Job 9:21</a>), just as God's people cast away His covenant (<a href='B:290 8:6'>Isa 8:6</a>; <a href='B:290 30:12'>Isa 30:12</a>; <a href='B:300 6:19'>Jer 6:19</a>), God would not cast away His people in their exile and depression (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>), even if they cast him away.</p><p>Here again we see that Job's depression leads him to charge God foolishly. He clearly does not smile on wicked counsel, nor does He despise people. We marvel the more at God's final statement that Job had spoken rightly about Him (<a href='B:220 42:7-8'>Job 42:7-8</a>). That Divine comment may indeed simply be upon Job's statement of repentance. But all the same, we would expect God to clarify that was what He intended, and to offer some note that Job has indeed falsely accused Him. But God doesn't. He doesn't need to. He has completely justified Job by faith, clothing him with imputed righteousness. And His demonstration of His ways has in any case made the required point, and Job recognized that.</p>


text:
<p> Do You have eyes of flesh? Or do You see as man sees?-</p><p> As explained on :5,6, these desires Job had were in a sense legitimate; and they set him up to yearn for a person exactly like the Lord Jesus. The exiles' demand that God be like this was partly answered in the vision of the cherubim, which were covered with a body or "flesh" full of "eyes" (<a href='B:330 10:12'>Eze 10:12</a>). This was to teach that God was in fact legitimately aware of the human perspective of His people in exile.</p>


text:
<p> Are Your days as the days of mortals, or Your years as man’s years-</p><p> LXX "Or is thy life human?". It was to be, in the person of His Son. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p> that You inquire after my iniquity, and search after my sin?-</p><p> The Lord Jesus can execute judgment upon human sin exactly because He is and was "Son of man" (<a href='B:500 5:27'>Joh 5:27</a>); He is the answer to Job's complaint in :5 LXX "Is thy life human?". Job's questions and struggles set him up to need and appreciate the Lord Jesus, although Job died without having seen Him, although probably believing in His future appearance.</p>


text:
<p> Although You know that I am not wicked, there is no one who can deliver out of Your hand-</p><p> This appears to contradict Job's apparent awareness of sin in Job 9. He later confesses his sin; but here he seems to expect God to accept his own view of himself. He was effectively casting God in his own human image and likeness rather than the other way around. Or we could consider the possibility that Job is trying to force a difference between his being a sinner, but not being "wicked", i:e. 'extremely sinful' by the norms of society. This false difference is tackled by Paul in Romans 1-8 and Job at the end repents, realizing that no such gradation of sin is ultimately acceptable.</p>


text:
<p> Your hands have framed me and fashioned me altogether, yet You swallow me up-</p><p> GNB "Your hands formed and shaped me, and now those same hands destroy me". This was indeed what happened at the destruction of Judah by God through Babylon; see on <a href='B:300 18:8-10'>Jer 18:8-10</a>. It was unreasonable of both Job and the exiles to consider that because they were God's created people, therefore they were somehow immune from judgment. Job believed that it was God who was seeking to swallow him up in death (<a href='B:220 10:8'>Job 10:8</a> Heb:) – surely alluding to how Mot, the god of death, was thought to have jaws encompassing the earth and swallowing up people at their death into the underworld. But Job rejected that myth – he saw God as the swallower, and death as a return to the dust, albeit in hope of bodily resurrection at the last day (<a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a>). See on <a href='B:220 26:6'>Job 26:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p> Remember, I beg You, that You have fashioned me as clay. Will You bring me into dust again?-</p><p> As noted on :8, it was unreasonable of both Job and the exiles to consider that because they were God's created people, therefore they were somehow immune from judgment. A connection is made between Job and Adam here. This is <a href='B:10 3:19'>Gen 3:19</a> - the curse upon sinful Adam that he would return to the dust. Job seems to be admitting that he is like Adam in that it appeared God was going to end his life as a result of his sin- return him to the dust. But he reasons that this is unfair, seeing he has not sinned (<a href='B:220 10:7'>Job 10:7</a>; <a href='B:220 10:14-15'>Job 10:14-15</a>). Thus he oscillates between saying he has sinned and is like Adam, and then claiming that although he is being treated like Adam this is unfair. See on <a href='B:220 9:17'>Job 9:17</a>; <a href='B:220 13:20-22'>Job 13:20-22</a>.</p>


text:
<p> Haven’t You poured me out like milk, and curdled me like cheese?-</p><p> The original is obscure. Hence GNB: "You gave my father strength to beget me; you made me grow in my mother's womb". Again, as noted on :8,9, Job appears to consider that his being human, having been created by God, means that it is unreasonable of God to find fault with him. This again is leading us up to the final revelation of God, where all such justifications of sin and minimalizing of Divine judgment are taken away.</p>


text:
<p> You have clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews-</p><p> "Knit me together" is the same word as "hedge" when satan complains that God has made a hedge about Job (<a href='B:220 1:10'>Job 1:10</a>). Job appears to be aware of the conversation between the satan and the Lord. It therefore makes sense to understand that the gathering of the sons of God and 'satan' was a gathering of the people of God, including the friends and Job, and the conversation was heard by all. Job is therefore saying that actually the only hedge or fence he has is his own physical body. In <a href='B:220 3:23'>Job 3:23</a> and <a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a> this hedging seems to be interpreted as a feeling of spiritual restriction- as if like Paul, Job yearned to be released from this body of sin and corruption to "the glorious (spiritual) liberty of the sons of God". Job seems to be saying 'You say&nbsp; I'm hedged about with blessings. But now the only hedge I've got is this sick body. The only help you give me now is to give me my spirit to keep me alive, only so you can torment me more'. Understandable, if faulty, reasoning in Job's situation.</p>


text:
<p> You have granted me life and grace. Your visitation has preserved my spirit-</p><p> This is the kind of oscillation of feeling which is characteristic of depression. One moment Job sees God as unreasonable, the next, he appreciates the gift of life which he has been saying he doesn't want; and appreciates grace, and that it is God's special and conscious "visitation" which keeps him alive every moment. Divine "visitation" is an idea used for judgment (<a href='B:300 11:23'>Jer 11:23</a>; <a href='B:300 23:12'>Jer 23:12</a>; <a href='B:300 46:21'>Jer 46:21</a> etc:). If Job understood it that way, he is coming to see the paradox later made explicit at the end of the book- that the wrath of God is the love of God, His judgment is in fact the preservation of life for those who respond to it; it is in fact His grace. And chesed is the word that features in the description of the promises to Abraham as "mercy and truth" (<a href='B:10 24:14'>Gen 24:14</a>; <a href='B:10 24:27'>Gen 24:27</a> etc:).</p>


text:
<p> Yet You hid these things in Your heart. I know that this is with You-</p><p> LXX "Having these things in thyself, I know that thou canst do all things; for nothing is impossible with thee". Job at the end was to repeat these words in <a href='B:220 42:2'>Job 42:2</a>, but really understanding and meaning them as a result of his sufferings.</p>


text:
<p> If I sin, then You mark me. You will not acquit me from my iniquity-</p><p> Job feels here like Cain (<a href='B:10 4:15'>Gen 4:15</a>; see on <a href='B:220 11:15'>Job 11:15</a>), marked for his sin and unable to just die as he perhaps initially wanted. Still Job is far from the total confession of sin and repentance which he finally comes to; he accepts he is a sinner, but seem to always qualify it, putting it under some question, and accuses God of unjustly punishing him for sin. But the Hebrew translated "mark" is the common word for 'keeping', e.g. "the way to the tree of life" (<a href='B:10 3:24'>Gen 3:24</a>). Perhaps Job is lamenting that God still keeps him alive and doesn't let him die.</p>


text:
<p> If I am wicked, woe to me. If I am righteous, I still shall not lift up my head, being filled with disgrace, and conscious of my affliction-</p><p> Perhaps Job has in mind the two possible outcomes of his final judgment; the "woe" of condemnation if indeed he is finally judged wicked, and yet the "disgrace" he would still feel if declared righteous. We see here how he has no clear faith in salvation at this point, and dislikes the way future salvation has to come through accepting "disgrace". The final revelation of God at the end elicits both his disgrace, and also his final acceptance that God has counted him as righteous. "Righteous" is the word for "just", used in the common question and theme of the book: "How can a man be just with God?" (<a href='B:220 4:17'>Job 4:17</a>; <a href='B:220 9:2'>Job 9:2</a>). What Job had to recognize was that righteousness was a gift from God by grace, and by attempting to establish his own righteousness according to his works, he was effectively condemning God (s:w. <a href='B:220 40:8'>Job 40:8</a>). We can also reason that Job's confusion is because even if he is personally righteous, he still will feel the "disgrace" or shame of condemnation- the very term used of the "disgrace" of Israel in their condemnation and rejection (<a href='B:300 13:26'>Jer 13:26</a>; <a href='B:350 4:7'>Hos 4:7</a> etc:). And again we see the representative nature of Job as the suffering servant. He was righteous, but bore the shame / disgrace of Judah's condemnation. This confused and depressed him, but the Lord learnt from this; feeling our condemnation on account of His total identity with us, and yet being personally righteous.</p>


text:
<p> If my head is held high, You hunt me like a lion. Again You show Yourself wonderful to me-</p><p> As noted on :15, Job struggles with what seem contradictory movements of God toward him. On one hand, he is hunted as prey being chased by a lion; but then this same God, manifest through the lion, shows tender grace to him. And again, this is how things were to be with the representative suffering servant. It was God's people who were hunted by God, acting like a lion manifest in Babylon / Assyria. And yet that same God was "wonderful to me" personally, for Job was a righteous man. It was only when he was called upon to pray for his friends and to save them that he appreciated this; and thereby became established as a wonderful prototype of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p> You renew Your witnesses against me, and increase Your indignation on me. Changes and warfare are within me-</p><p> This continues the theme of :16, that one moment God shows Himself "wonderful to me", and the next, He has Job in the dock calling all manner of witnesses against him, and reading out the judgment of His "indignation". And this "change" or tension, this struggle or "warfare", was "within me", deeply absorbed into Job's struggling soul. The Lord Jesus generally appeared to have none of this, until the final struggling appeal "My God, why have You forsaken me?", 'Me, the righteous one' (<a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a>). That struggle is shown resolved in Job.</p>


text:
<p>‘Why, then, have You brought me forth out of the womb? I wish I had given up the spirit, and no eye had seen me-</p><p> This despising of his own life was because (as explained on :15-18), Job had yet to appreciate that his sufferings were not just for himself; they were because he was representative of others, and his prayer for the friends would be for their salvation. This is Paul's message in 2 Corinthians 1 - that suffering is in order for us to help others, and to mediate to them the grace God gives us in our sufferings. But without that sharing further, suffering is perceived by the sufferer as solely personal. And they therefore wish to die, because suffering for our own sake seems pointless. And so the simplistic explanation of the book of Job to the effect that 'through suffering Job became a better man' is missing the point, and is a one cent answer to million dollar questions.</p>


text:
<p> I should have been as though I had not been. I should have been carried from the womb to the grave-</p><p> Job doesn't wait to hear the answer to his question to God of :18- Why…? had he been born. The answer to that was that he was to become a representative sufferer who would be prepared for a point where he could pray for his friends and save them. Without this aspect of evangelism, of pastoral effect upon others, then all human experience and suffering, even life itself, is ultimately meaningless.</p>


text:
<p> Aren’t my days few? Cease then. Leave me alone, that I may find a little comfort-</p><p> Job didn't want comfort, he wanted God to leave him alone; and this was just how the exiles felt, in effect. Hence the message of the restoration prophets was that God's people were to be comforted (<a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a> etc:). By grace, God didn't answer Job's request, and pushed forward His saving plan with him, as He sought to do with the exiles. These words were later on the lips of David (<a href='B:230 39:10-13'>Psa 39:10-13</a>), perhaps at the time of his illness after his sin with Bathsheba. But that period was the one when he wrote the Psalms which are most clearly prophetic of the feelings of the Lord Jesus upon the cross. And Job was being led toward the spirit of Christ.</p>


text:
<p> before I go where I shall not return from, to the land of darkness and of the shadow of death-</p><p> At this point Job has apparently no faith in a resurrection. But already he has reasoned that the suffering of the righteous means that there must be a day of future judgment, involving personal resurrection. And by <a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a> he is clear about this. His faith, like ours, went up and down in the short term, but progressing towards the final acceptance of Divine salvation, grace and restoration at the end.</p>


text:
<p> the land dark as midnight, of the shadow of death, without any order, where the light is as midnight’- The lack of "order" and darkness suggests a return to the situation as described before the creation of Genesis 1. Job is failing to perceive that his 'decreation' or 'uncreation', like the destruction of Judah's kingdom and temple, was all a necessary prelude to the new creation promised in the restoration prophecies. And it was the essence of that which Job experienced in his own restoration. And this is why</p><p><a href='B:220 12:22'>Job 12:22</a> is such a significant breakthrough in Job's thinking, when he starts to accept that "He uncovers deep things out of darkness, and brings out to light the shadow of death".</p>


text:
<p> Then Zophar the Naamathite responded-</p><p> He comes over as angry and arrogant, as if he really hates Job. He doesn't specifically answer Job's arguments nor even cite them very much. I noted on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a> that Job's "friends" appear to become associated with the actual actions of the "Satan", and Zophar's anger with Job would confirm that conclusion.</p>


text:
<p> Shouldn’t the multitude of words be answered? Should a man full of talk be justified?-</p><p> The idea may be that Job was wrong to justify his much talking by saying that it was inevitable because of the greatness of his suffering; see on <a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a>. Job was not to assume that his wild talking was simply not culpable, just because he was suffering and depressed. And again, there is some abiding truth in that. And God finally demonstrates that Job is "justified" by grace, and not by his words.</p>


text:
<p> Should your boastings make men hold their peace? When you mock, shall no man make you ashamed?-</p><p> LXX "Be not a speaker of many words", alluded to by James when he urges is not to be "many teachers" (<a href='B:660 3:1'>Jas 3:1</a>). See on <a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a>. The friends mix elements of truth (as noted on :2) with unreasonable exaggeration of Job's weaknesses and positions. He has not so far come over as 'mocking', but that was how Job was perceived by the friends; just as our holding of alternative positions can be wrongly read as 'boasting' and 'mocking'.</p>


text:
<p> For you say, ‘My doctrine is pure. I am clean in Your eyes’-</p><p> As noted on :1, Zophar attacks Job according to Zophar's own perceptions of him, the image of "Job" he had developed in his mind, rather than reality. As noted on :1, unlike Eliphaz he doesn't actually engage with what Job says. And he is typical of many who engage in supposed 'dialogue' today. Job has only said that even if he were to cleanse himself (implying he felt unclean), then God would not accept him (<a href='B:220 9:30'>Job 9:30</a>). The friends begin with the suspicion that Job is being judged for sin; and so their wrong theological position [that sin brings immediate Divine judgment and loss of previous blessing] leads them to interpersonal problems, and an overall negative view of their brother Job, seeking to perceive fault in everything he said or had ever done.</p>


text:
<p> But oh that God would speak, and open His lips against you-</p><p> In the end, all the participants in the dialogue get what they ask for- God's open revelation. But it was not what any of them expected. And the opening of God's lips was against the friends, and not against Job.</p>


text:
<p> that He would show you the secrets of wisdom! For true wisdom has two sides-</p><p> This was finally true for them all. Both Job and the friends say many true things, but they fail to see there was 'another side' to those truths; just as so many do today.</p><p>Know therefore that God exacts of you less than your iniquity deserves-</p><p> Connecting with how Ezra confesses that the exiles and all Judah had been punished less than their sins deserved (<a href='B:150 9:13'>Ezr 9:13</a>). Zophar likely implies that Job's huge sins (reflected in his massive judgments) really deserved death, and the fact Job was still alive meant that he was being punished less than deserved. And so it was with Judah. God had not destroyed them as a people, He had not taken their collective life; and this meant that they were being punished less than their sins deserved. And yet they, like Job, considered they were being punished and judged disproportionately. The resolution of that was in accepting their sins and the justice and grace of God's judgment of them, as Job finally did at the end.</p>


text:
<p> Can you fathom the mystery of God?-</p><p> This again is true so far as it stands, but Zophar uses this truth wrongly. He implies that any attempt to understand God's ways was therefore wrong; and yet he dogmatically proceeds with his own attempts to fathom the mystery of God. Paul has this verse in mind in <a href='B:520 11:33'>Rom 11:33</a>, where he declares that the "mystery of God" (<a href='B:520 11:25'>Rom 11:25</a>) is in His saving grace which cannot be fathomed by us. And that was the declaration of the "mystery of God" which is finally made at the end of the book of Job.</p><p>Or can you probe the limits of the Almighty?-</p><p> Job sought to "probe" (AV "find out") the Almighty (<a href='B:220 23:3'>Job 23:3</a>; <a href='B:220 28:12'>Job 28:12</a>), whereas Elihu appears to agree with Zophar that "the Almighty" cannot be 'found out' (<a href='B:220 11:7'>Job 11:7</a>; <a href='B:220 37:23'>Job 37:23</a>). God's own appearance at the end is perhaps an answer to this. He cannot be 'found out' by intellectual argument or personal righteousness. Instead, He 'finds out' people and saves them by grace. Paul expresses the same idea when he writes that it is not so much a case of man 'knowing God', but rather of being "known of God" by grace (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p> They are high as heaven. What can you do? They are deeper than Sheol. What can you know?-</p><p> As discussed on :7, it is indeed true that we cannot "know" God by intellectual argument or personal righteousness. And that lesson abides. And yet on the other hand, 'knowing' God in the Hebraic sense of 'having a relationship with' is absolutely possible, and is what God seeks with men. However it is possible that Zophar uses the idea of 'heaven and sheol' as it is used in the only other two Biblical occurrences of the phrase (<a href='B:230 139:8'>Psa 139:8</a>; <a href='B:370 9:2'>Amo 9:2</a>)- where it means that one cannot escape God by going above heaven or deeper than sheol. Jonah, representative of the exiles, tried to do this and failed.</p>


text:
<p> Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea-</p><p> God's ways are further or longer than the eretz, a word often used specifically of the land promised to Abraham. There is the hint here that the final wisdom of God was connected with a plan of global salvation, and was not limited to any single territory. This had special relevance to the captives in Babylon and Assyria, some of them now outside the eretz; and it also speaks to their tendency towards racial elitism, as if Israel were the only people God was willing to have relationship with. The prophets therefore speak of the restored people of God as being multiethnic, and His kingdom as universal and not any longer only based in the eretz of Israel.</p>


text:
<p> If He passes by, or confines-</p><p> "Confines" is the word used of the shutting up or confining of the exiles in captivity (<a href='B:300 13:19'>Jer 13:19</a>; <a href='B:310 2:7'>Lam 2:7</a>; <a href='B:370 6:8'>Amo 6:8</a>).</p><p>Or convenes a court, then who can oppose Him?-</p><p> This again has abiding truth- because we cannot simply get out of our relationship with God by as it were not turning up in court.</p><p>The dramatic story of Job thrice uses the same phrase as in <a href='B:290 43:13'>Isa 43:13</a>, concluding that "who can hinder…?" God's way (<a href='B:220 9:12'>Job 9:12</a>; <a href='B:220 11:10'>Job 11:10</a>; <a href='B:220 23:13'>Job 23:13</a>). The exiles were to understand that no human opposition or discouragement can turn back or hinder God's purpose to save His people, even if they are as Job in suffering. His saving and restorative purpose will not be hindered, if we wish to identify with it.</p>


text:
<p> For He knows false men. He sees iniquity also, even though He doesn’t consider it-</p><p> AV "will He not then consider it?", as if God is aware of all sin, and will "consider" it in judgment. Zophar and the friends seem to think that this judgment is going on in Job's life, whereas Job is correctly driven to understand that judgment must be yet future.</p>


text:
<p> An empty-</p><p>headed man becomes wise when a man is born as a wild donkey’s colt-</p><p> The idea seems to be that a&nbsp; stubborn and untamed man like Job, similar to a wild donkey's colt, can still become wise- if he repents (:13). Zophar is misreading Job, but he is correct to understand the true wisdom as being in repentance. Job's vain search for wisdom in Job 28 finally comes to an end when he repents and thereby 'finds' God. Even wrong argumentation and false accusation can be used by God to bring us closer to His truth, through the process of our working it through and rejecting it.</p>


text:
<p> If you set your heart aright, stretch out your hands toward Him-</p><p> As noted on :4, Zophar's wrong theology [his assumption that Job must have sinned to be suffering as he now was] led him to judge the state of Job's heart, as being not "set aright". And it is exactly this wrongful judgment of human hearts which arises from an insistence in believing that we can attach meaning to event in the lives of others; and this is effectively to play God.</p>


text:
<p> If iniquity is in your hand, put it far away. Don’t let unrighteousness dwell in your tents-</p><p> Clearly an oblique reference to the family "tents" of Job having been smitten because of the unrighteousness there. Job's children were indeed sinners, it would appear. For they were struck down by "the fire of God". But Zophar is reasoning that one man, Job, can be responsible for the sins of his family. But God works with individuals, and all Job's regular sacrifices for the sins of his children were revealed as irrelevant. For God deals with individuals.</p>


text:
<p> Surely then you shall lift up your face without spot; yes, you shall be steadfast, and shall not fear-</p><p> Zophar possibly recognized that Job was like Cain in that his countenance had fallen and he was so angry, although also fearful of God (<a href='B:10 4:5'>Gen 4:5</a>); Job has already seen himself as Cain (<a href='B:220 10:14'>Job 10:14</a>). See on <a href='B:220 13:27'>Job 13:27</a>; <a href='B:220 16:17-18'>Job 16:17-18</a>; <a href='B:220 31:39'>Job 31:39</a>. Job has argued that even if he were righteous, still he could not lift up his face without spot and without fear. Zophar fails to realize that it was quite possible for Job to be personally righteous, and yet to experience all the sufferings and feelings of the sinful, condemned people of God. The idea of being "without spot" before God is picked up in the New Testament. We can be like this (<a href='B:560 5:27'>Eph 5:27</a>; <a href='B:680 3:14'>2Pe 3:14</a>) but only "in His sight", because the righteousness of His spotless Son has been imputed to us by grace through faith (<a href='B:650 9:14'>Heb 9:14</a>; <a href='B:670 1:19'>1Pe 1:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p> for you shall forget your misery. You shall remember it as waters that are passed away-</p><p> The exiles likewise could be restored so that their sufferings were seen as the waters of Noah which had passed away (<a href='B:290 54:9'>Isa 54:9</a>), and would forget the days of their misery. "Misery" is the word translated "travail" regarding the sufferings of the suffering servant (<a href='B:290 53:11'>Isa 53:11</a>). That figure is undoubtedly based upon Job as prototype.</p>


text:
<p> Life shall be clearer than the noonday. Though there is darkness, it shall be as the morning-</p><p> Again, there is some level of truth in all this. This is what repentance could lead to. And the language is exactly that of the joyful dawn which could have come for the exiles, brought forth out of the darkness of captivity in Babylon. Job experienced this in his restoration, but the exiles failed to follow his path.</p>


text:
<p> You shall be secure, because there is hope. Yes, you shall search, and shall take your rest in safety-</p><p> Again, the language of the restoration prophets concerning the lying down of the returned exiles in safety with none making them afraid (<a href='B:290 14:30'>Isa 14:30</a>; <a href='B:350 2:18'>Hos 2:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Also you shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid-</p><p> Exactly the language of how Judah could be restored, if they repented and accepted the new covenant (<a href='B:330 34:14-15'>Eze 34:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 33:12'>Jer 33:12</a>).</p><p>Yes, many shall court your favour-</p><p> LXX "and many shall charge, and make supplication to thee", the language of later Isaiah of how the tables would turn and the Gentiles would make supplication to the restored exiles.</p>


text:
<p> But the eyes of the wicked shall fail-</p><p> Perhaps Job's health issues included failing eyesight. For here when Zophar speaks of the fate of the wicked, he has Job in view. The very language of the curses to come upon Israel for breaking covenant (<a href='B:30 26:16'>Lev 26:16</a>), experienced by them at the Babylonian invasion (<a href='B:310 2:11'>Lam 2:11</a>; <a href='B:310 4:17'>Lam 4:17</a>). The suffering servant experienced this (<a href='B:230 69:3'>Psa 69:3</a> s:w:) as did Job, sharing in the judgment of the condemned although not personally sinning.</p><p>They shall have no way to flee-</p><p> The judgment upon Judah (s:w. <a href='B:300 25:35'>Jer 25:35</a>; <a href='B:370 2:14'>Amo 2:14</a>).</p><p>Their hope shall be the giving up of the spirit- This was what Job so hoped for, and Zophar has Job in view all through his description of the death of the wicked. As demonstrated earlier in this verse, the condemnation of the wicked did indeed happen to God's people, and Job experienced it, whilst being personally innocent. This is the exact situation with the Lord Jesus. He who will dispense condemnation does in fact know what condemnation feels like, because He so identified with condemned humanity.</p>


text:
<p> Then Job answered-</p><p> Job now seems angry in this speech, descending at times to sarcasm.</p>


text:
<p> No doubt, but you are the people, and wisdom shall die with you-</p><p> Job is responding to the friends' insistence that Job stood condemned according to the wisdom of those who had gone before. Job is saying that he doesn't accept that, and that rather the friends are projecting their ideas onto the previous 'wise men', creating those men after their own likeness and mental image. In fact, Job is saying, the friends consider that they themselves are the source of all wisdom, they see themselves as the unequalled pinnacle of wisdom, so great that when they die, so will their wisdom. In other words, their wisdom was just they themselves.</p>


text:
<p> But I have understanding as well as you; I am not inferior to you. Yes, who doesn’t know such things as these?-</p><p> Job refused to take false guilt and to be pushed down by men. Our opinion is a priori as valid as that of any other believer, no matter how they seek to shore it up allusion to other sages.</p>


text:
<p> I am like one who is a joke to his neighbour, because I called on God, and He answered. The just, the blameless man is a joke-</p><p> The restoration prophet Jeremiah quoted this about himself (<a href='B:300 20:7'>Jer 20:7</a>; <a href='B:310 3:14'>Lam 3:14</a> s:w:), as representative of Judah in captivity, who were mocked [s:w. 'joked at') daily (<a href='B:300 48:27'>Jer 48:27</a> s:w:) by their neighbours, the Babylonians and the peoples of their confederacy.</p>


text:
<p> In the thought of him who is at ease there is contempt for misfortune. It is ready for them whose foot slips-</p><p> Suffering is intended to produce empathy with others; as 2 Corinthians 1 makes clear, this is a large reason for our experience of suffering. Job is realizing this; that there can be no empathy with the suffering from those who haven't suffered. And thus he was being led towards realizing that his sufferings were not just for himself, but were to be used to comfort others. And those "others" were the friends, whom he was to save by his forgiveness and prayers for them. LXX "For it had been ordained that he should fall under others at the appointed time, and that his houses should be spoiled by transgressors"- connecting with the destruction of the great houses of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (<a href='B:300 52:13'>Jer 52:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p> The tents of robbers prosper. Those who provoke God are secure, who carry their God in their hands-</p><p> Job makes several references to the arguments of the satan in his replies to the friends; as if they were in fact the satan, and as if he knew perfectly well what they had said to Yahweh. Thus he tells the friends that those who provoke God are secure, whereas the satan had suggested that Job would provoke God to His face if his security was taken away. Job says that such people who provoke God have all things given into their hand by Yahweh; and it is hard not to see in this a reference to the satan, into whose hand Job had been delivered. It was as if Job was saying to them: 'You are the ones who have provoked God, you are the ones into whose hand God has delivered me; so actually you are the wicked, not me'. For more connections between the friends and the satan, see on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p> But ask the animals now, and they shall teach you; the birds of the sky, and they shall tell you-</p><p> At the end of the book, we are told that it is God who not only created Behemoth, but can effortlessly control him in accord with His purpose. That’s the comfort of the message. Indeed the descriptions of the natural world which lead up to the Leviathan / Behemoth passages are there to underline this point; and it’s interesting that those passages zoom in upon the cruelties and even brutalities within nature. Yet these are all of God’s ultimate design and creation, and under His providential control. Job had earlier perceived this; for he responds to the friends’ allusions to an evil ‘Satan’ figure as the source of his suffering by observing: “Ask the animals... The birds of the air... [they show that] the hand of the Lord [and not any supernatural ‘Satan’] has done this” (<a href='B:220 12:7-9'>Job 12:7-9</a>). Job himself turned to the natural creation for lessons, and so God's final appeal to that same creation was only really leading him further from where he had already arrived.</p>


text:
<p> Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach you. The fish of the sea shall declare to you-</p><p> "Declare" is literally 'to number'. Job's idea was that one had only to look at the natural creation, and they would 'number up' the extent of God's activity. But later Job has to be taught that man cannot number up these things (s:w. <a href='B:220 38:37'>Job 38:37</a>; <a href='B:220 39:2'>Job 39:2</a>). They could not be numbered by man, but only by God. This is the same word used in the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:300 38:22'>Jer 38:22</a>: "As the host of the sky cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured", so God's grace would be poured out in restoring His people. Job was being taught the same lesson. He finally believed it, but the exiles generally didn't, and so their restoration didn't happen after the pattern of Job's.</p>


text:
<p> Who doesn’t know that in all these, the hand of Yahweh has done this-</p><p> Satan asks God: "Put forth Your hand". The hand of God is an Angelic phrase. God agrees- "he is in your hand" (:6). Thus Satan's hand is God's hand, which in practice was articulated through an Angel. Job seems to emphasize the place of God's hand in bringing his trials- <a href='B:220 2:5-6'>Job 2:5-6</a>; <a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>; <a href='B:220 6:9'>Job 6:9</a>; <a href='B:220 10:7'>Job 10:7</a>; <a href='B:220 13:21'>Job 13:21</a>; <a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>; <a href='B:220 27:11'>Job 27:11</a> AVmg; 28:9. Job in <a href='B:220 12:9'>Job 12:9</a> feels that in the same way as God's hand had created the natural creation- and the Angels did this- so that same Angelic hand was upon him for evil. "By His Spirit (God makes His Angels spirits) He hath garnished the Heavens; His hand hath formed the crooked serpent" (<a href='B:220 26:13'>Job 26:13</a>). Thus Job associates God's Spirit with His hand, which is Satan's hand. It seems far more fitting that this hand and spirit should be Angelic rather than human. For no one human being could bring these sufferings upon Job. The human Satan, the fellow worshipper, was reflected in an Angel in the court of Heaven. Again, it was Angelic work that formed the Heavens. Job recognized that his trials came from the hand of God, but knew that His hand would not kill him- "with Thy strong hand Thou opposest Thyself against me... howbeit He will not stretch out His hand to (bring me to) the grave" (<a href='B:220 30:21'>Job 30:21</a>; <a href='B:220 30:24'>Job 30:24</a> AV). This was exactly the brief given to satan- to try Job, but "preserve his life". The hand of God creating evil (<a href='B:220 2:10-11'>Job 2:10-11</a>) must surely refer to God's "Angels of evil" (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>) rather than to man- in the restoration context, the people and Cyrus had to be taught that no one except God (including human satans!) created evil (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>).</p>


text:
<p> in whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind?-</p><p> As noted on :9, this alludes to God's command to the Satan: "He [Job] is in your hand". But Job insists that he is in God's hand. He is labouring this point (:9), because he is perhaps answering the implication of the friends that he has sinned and is therefore in the hands of some cosmic evil being, out of God's control.</p>


text:
<p> Doesn’t the ear try words, even as the palate tastes its food?-</p><p> The idea is that truth should not just be accepted because the source is an old or reputedly wise man (:12). For even their wisdom is nothing compared with God's (:13). Job is looking for truth to come from direct revelation from God rather than through the wisdom of men. And that desire appears frustrated by God's apparent silence. But all this builds up towards the final wonder of God Himself appearing and speaking at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> With aged men is wisdom, in length of days understanding-</p><p> See on :11. Job may be being sarcastic here, and perhaps we could put a question mark at the end of this sentence. For to predicate wisdom upon years lived becomes laughable compared, therefore, to the wisdom of the God who is from everlasting (:13). Therefore Job is looking for truth to come from direct revelation from God rather than through the wisdom of men. And that desire appears frustrated by God's apparent silence. But all this builds up towards the final wonder of God Himself appearing and speaking at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> With God is wisdom and might. He has counsel and understanding-</p><p> See on :11,12. Job has complained about God's apparent silence and failure to speak or dialogue with him throughout all the suffering. But Job doesn't doubt that God does have "counsel and understanding". Again, all this builds up towards the final wonder of God Himself appearing and speaking at the end of the book. Job can be read as implying that he doesn't have "counsel and understanding", but God does. This again makes his representative of Israel under judgment, who were left "without counsel and understanding" (s:w. <a href='B:50 32:28'>Deu 32:28</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p> Behold, He breaks down, and it can’t be built again. He imprisons a man, and there can be no release-</p><p> Here Job starts to go wrong. Because he feels that at this moment, he has no hope of restoration- therefore he assumes that this is how God is. But this was how the depressed exiles felt. The restoration prophecies speak of release from the prison of captivity, and the broken down Zion being "built again" (<a href='B:300 24:6'>Jer 24:6</a>; <a href='B:300 31:4'>Jer 31:4</a>). The fact Job was 'released' and restored, despite his momentary lack of faith that this were possible, was intended as a pattern for the exiles.</p>


text:
<p> Behold, He withholds the waters, and they dry up. Again, He sends them out, and they overturn the earth-</p><p> &nbsp;The theme of 'drying up' or 'withering' is significant. Bildad considers Job to have been 'dried up' by God's judgment (<a href='B:220 8:12'>Job 8:12</a>), and the word is used of how God withered or dried up Judah at the hands of their invaders (<a href='B:300 12:4'>Jer 12:4</a>; <a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; <a href='B:330 17:9-10'>Eze 17:9-10</a>; <a href='B:330 17:24'>Eze 17:24</a>; <a href='B:450 11:17'>Zec 11:17</a>; <a href='B:310 4:8'>Lam 4:8</a>; <a href='B:290 40:7-8'>Isa 40:7-8</a> - although the prophetic word of God requiring their restoration would endure, despite their drying up). The dry bones of Judah in captivity were withered or dried up (<a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>). So Job's 'drying up' was again, a sharing in the representative suffering of God's people. Job's personal response to his 'drying up' was to reflect that God dries up waters and also sends them forth as floods (<a href='B:220 12:15'>Job 12:15</a> s:w:); He can give and He can take, just as Job had initially realized (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>). Just as He dried up Job / Israel, so He could abundantly send forth waters; just as He did at the Red Sea. Restoration and salvation was just as easy for Him as destruction, to put it another way. The drying up of Job was also understood by him as referring to his death (<a href='B:220 14:11'>Job 14:11</a>), but God could raise him from the dead and have a desire to him again (<a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). Eliphaz wrongly argues that the Divine 'drying up' of a person means permanent extinction (<a href='B:220 15:30'>Job 15:30</a>), as does Bildad (<a href='B:220 18:16'>Job 18:16</a>); but Job always sees the 'drying up' as part of a Divine action which also has a counterpart, the pouring out again of waters, or resurrection of the dried up, withered bones. Likewise Judah in captivity thought that their drying up, their dry bones, were incapable of revival (<a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>); but the message is that they could indeed be revived, and their drying up was but a presage to their eternal revival:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p> With Him is strength and wisdom. The deceived and the deceiver are His-</p><p> Job is poetry, and poetry works by using familiar words and images in new ways. Hence myths can be alluded to and used, but in order to present them in a different context and to achieve more powerfully a conclusion rather than just baldly stating it; i:e. that Yahweh is all powerful and that there are actually no abiding realities behind the myths. Thus poetry is an appropriate medium through which to articulate this message. “The deceived and the deceiver are His” is poetry which even comes through somewhat in translation (<a href='B:220 12:16'>Job 12:16</a>). The expectation is that the deceiver is Satan, and God is with or sympathetic to the deceived. But no. Such dualistic expectations are set up, but crushed at the end of the strophe: both deceived and deceiver are God’s. For there is no dualistic cosmos out there. Indeed, "the deceiver" may refer to some superhuman tempter, similar to how many today understand 'Satan'. And Job is saying that God is far more powerful than any such being. Or we can note that the words for "deceived" and "deceiver" are usually used about sin and those leading into sin. Despite all that, God is still there, and His people "are His"; the words are used about spiritually "wandering" Judah in their captivity (<a href='B:330 34:6'>Eze 34:6</a>), who were still "His" in that He would never ultimately reject His people.</p>


text:
<p> He leads counsellors away stripped. He makes judges fools-</p><p> This was to be seen in the leading away of the leaders of Judah "stripped" in exile, despite their apparent wisdom. Again Job is being driven to the view that God alone has wisdom, as the judges and counsellors represented by the friends simply have no wisdom. As noted on :11-13, all this builds up towards the final wonder of God Himself appearing and speaking at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> He loosens the bond of kings. He binds their waist with a belt-</p><p> LXX "He seats kings upon thrones, and girds their loins with a girdle", exactly the language used of Cyrus. Being a leader was a gift from God which He could give and take at will, according to the wisdom of His own plans, which as yet Job could not perceive, but which was to be revealed at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> He leads priests away stripped, and overthrows the mighty-</p><p> So relevant to the leading into captivity of the priests such as Ezekiel. Job appears to have been a priest for his family, and his overthrow was therefore representative of Judah's; and his path to restoration was to be theirs, if they perceived it. He could not of himself save anyone, only show an example to be followed; as stated explicitly to the exiles in <a href='B:330 14:14'>Eze 14:14</a>; <a href='B:330 14:20'>Eze 14:20</a>. And this is true of us all.</p>


text:
<p> He removes the speech of those who are trusted, and takes away the understanding of the elders-</p><p> The "trusted" and "elders" are oblique references to the friends. All human wisdom is removed compared to God's wisdom. But that wisdom is only finally revealed at the end of the book. The lesson of Job is to wait patiently for that, suffering when we cannot assign meaning to event for the moment, in the knowledge that finally there is a Divine wisdom at work through it all.</p>


text:
<p> He pours contempt on princes, and loosens the belt of the strong-</p><p> Job is starting to perceive that God's style is to radically invert everything. The high are brought low, the humble exalted. This explained why Job had been brought down, and led Job towards an expectation that he the humbled, the weak, would be restored. This theme of radical inversion, the first being last and the last first, is found throughout the restoration prophets, especially Isaiah. The humbled exiles were to see in their humiliation a situation pregnant with hope for restoration.</p>


text:
<p> He uncovers deep things out of darkness, and brings out to light the shadow of death-</p><p> Earlier, Job has longed to go to the darkness of death never to return (<a href='B:220 10:21'>Job 10:21</a>), where "the land [is] dark as midnight, of the shadow of death, without any order, where the light is as midnight’" (<a href='B:220 10:22'>Job 10:22</a>). The lack of "order" and darkness suggests a return to the situation as described before the creation of Genesis 1. Job is failing to perceive that his 'decreation' or 'uncreation', like the destruction of Judah's kingdom and temple, was all a necessary prelude to the new creation promised in the restoration prophecies. And it was the essence of that which Job experienced in his own restoration. And this is why <a href='B:220 12:22'>Job 12:22</a> is such a significant breakthrough in Job's thinking, when he starts to accept that "He uncovers deep things out of darkness, and brings out to light the shadow of death".</p>


text:
<p> He increases the nations, and He destroys them. He enlarges the nations, and He leads them captive-</p><p> As noted on :21, Job was beginning to perceive that all goes in cycles of exaltation and humiliation, but he is to finally learn that for God's people, that humiliation is required for them to be exalted and restored as God intends. We too are to humble ourselves under His hand, that we may be exalted in due time. Perhaps Peter had his eye on Job's restoration as he wrote that (<a href='B:670 5:6'>1Pe 5:6</a>). These things are clearly relevant to the captives who were in Babylon, at the hands of an 'enlarged' Babylon which would also be 'destroyed' in due time.</p>


text:
<p> He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth, and causes them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way-</p><p> This is quoted in <a href='B:230 107:40'>Psa 107:40</a> as a summary of the history of Israel, but the Psalm goes on to say that "the poor" of Israel would be "set on high from affliction" (<a href='B:230 107:41'>Psa 107:41</a>). Again Job's experiences were understood by the Psalmist as typical of all Israel.</p>


text:
<p> They grope in the dark without light. He makes them stagger like a drunken man- Yet this was in fact the experience of Job himself (see on <a href='B:220 5:14'>Job 5:14</a>). Job was experiencing darkness at noon. But in this Job looked ahead to the sufferings of the Lord Jesus on the cross. He like the Lord suffered as a sinner without having personally sinned. Job was representative of sinful Israel under judgment, for to "grope at noonday" was their punishment for breaking the covenant (s:w. <a href='B:50 28:29'>Deu 28:29</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Behold, my eye has seen all this. My ear has heard and understood it-</p><p> This may be in direct reference to what Job has just said in Job 12, he is saying that he has worked these things out by his own reflections, and this has led him to an understanding which is no less valid than that of the friends. Job would later confess that he has indeed heard of God by the hearing of the ear; but only at the end did he join the dots, to the point where he could say that "now my eye sees You" (<a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p> What you know, I know also. I am not inferior to you-</p><p> As noted on :1, Job is not saying that his knowledge or understanding is identical to that of the friends, but rather that his path to knowledge is no less valid than theirs. "Inferior" is better 'to fall down'. Job may mean that he is not falling down before them, but before God. For he uses the same word in :11 to urge the friends to fall down ['be inferior to'] God, rather than assuming they know His game plan and thereby lifting themselves up above Him.</p>


text:
<p> Surely I would speak to the Almighty. I desire to reason with God-</p><p> Job has heard their demand that he turn to God, and he says that indeed he wishes to do so. But he implies that God will not speak to him. All this builds up towards the final wonder of God Himself appearing and speaking at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> But you are forgers of lies. You are all physicians of no value-</p><p> "Physicians" is the same word as "make[rs] whole" in <a href='B:220 5:18'>Job 5:18</a>: "He injures, and His hands make whole". His disillusion with the members of his religion, his brethren, led him to seek the more earnestly to God as the only one whose hands could "make whole" (s:w. "physician").</p>


text:
<p> Oh that you would be completely silent! Then you would be wise-</p><p> This was true, but Job himself was not being silent. At the end, he puts his hand upon his mouth and is silent (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). When Job finally lays his hand upon his mouth, he is only doing what he had earlier told the friends to do in recognition of their folly (<a href='B:220 13:5'>Job 13:5</a>; <a href='B:220 21:5'>Job 21:5</a>). Through the pain and irritation of their speeches, Job came to value and appreciate the need for silence before God. But it was only when personally confronted by God at the end that he realizes that he too had spoken too much and he repents of that in silence.</p>


text:
<p> Hear now my reasoning. Listen to the pleadings of my lips-</p><p> These appeals to hear and listen may not be simply asking them to hear his words; they may be an appeal to them to hear and repent. This desire for their repentance and understanding builds up within Job as the speeches progress. And again, this is preparing him for the Lord's final request to him- to pray for the friends and bring about their salvation (<a href='B:220 42:8'>Job 42:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Will you speak unrighteously for God, and talk deceitfully for Him?-</p><p> LXX "Do ye not speak before the Lord...", another hint that the friends were represented by the Satan figure of the prologue, who likewise appeared "before the Lord". Job warns them as many need warning today- that they were wrong to express their own gut feelings and assumptions in the name of God, as if they were talking on His behalf. Job differs from them in that he makes no claim to be speaking by Divine inspiration; he is simply bemoaning his lot and trying to reason through it, and that record of his words is noted down in the drama by an inspired writer.</p>


text:
<p> Will you show partiality to Him?-</p><p> Perhaps the idea is that they were acting as if God were in the dock, and they were being generous to Him in their judgment of Him.</p><p>Will you contend for God?-</p><p> God was not contending with Job through the friends as His representatives. The wonder of the final appearance of God is that He Himself appears and contends directly, not through any representatives such as the friends claimed to be.</p>


text:
<p> Is it good that He should search you out? Or as one deceives a man, will you deceive Him?-</p><p> The idea seems to be that if God searched out the friends, they would have to try to deceive Him, lest He find the truth about them. But Job later realizes that God does indeed search out all things (s:w. <a href='B:220 28:27'>Job 28:27</a>). He begins here by saying that if He were to search things out, He would not find a nice scene in the hearts of the friends. But Job moves on to realize that indeed this is what God is doing, on a cosmic scale- searching out all things.</p>


text:
<p> He will surely reprove you if you secretly show partiality-</p><p> "Reprove" is a legal term, used for legal 'pleading' in court (s:w. <a href='B:220 16:21'>Job 16:21</a>; <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>). Job clearly considers the friends to be guilty, and we are set up to expect that therefore God is going to open a legal case against the friends. And this is exactly what happens when God finally appears at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> Shall not His majesty make you afraid, and His dread fall on you?-</p><p> "Fall" is the same word translated "inferior" in :2: "I am not inferior to you". Job may mean that he is not falling down before them, but before God. For he uses the same word in :11 to urge the friends to fall down ['be inferior to'] God, rather than assuming they know His game plan and thereby are lifting themselves up above Him. At the end of the book, as noted on :10, God does appear in majesty, and they are indeed afraid before Him.</p>


text:
<p> Your memorable sayings are proverbs of ashes, your defences are defences of clay-</p><p> LXX "And your glorying shall prove in the end to you like ashes, and your body like a body of clay". They were bodies of clay; but only through their humiliation at the end of the book would they appreciate this in reality rather than merely as theory. And we see this happening in the events at the end of the book. And it is so with us today; the mortality of man can never be a mere theological proposition. It must be believed and felt, with an appropriate humility, rather than having to be reminded of it through Divine humiliation.</p>


text:
<p> Be silent, leave me alone, that I may speak. Let come on me what will-</p><p> LXX "Be silent, that I may speak, and cease from mine anger". In this case Job is wrongly thinking that his anger is legitimate because once he has blown it all out, he will then be silent. This was wrong, because at the end of the book he lays his hand on his mouth and recognizes that he has spoken wrongly. We too can falsely justify sin or unwise talking on the basis that once we've done it, we will then somehow stop being angry and get over our problem.</p>


text:
<p> Why should I take my flesh in my teeth, and put my life in my hand?-</p><p> The simple sense is as in GNB "I am ready to risk my life". That risk of life was in order to justify himself before God (:15). This was demonstrated at the end as being indeed wrong and punishable by death. Job did indeed risk his life, and was saved from condemnation by grace alone. However, taking "my flesh in my teeth" may be a figure drawn from a wild beast taking its prey in its teeth and carrying it off to safety; meaning therefore 'Why should I seek anxiously to preserve my life?'.</p>


text:
<p> Even if He slays me, still I will trust in Him-</p><p> The language of ‘slaying’ takes us back to the Mosaic commands about how a ‘slayer’ of a man might be killed by the ‘avenger of blood’. Job saw God as slaying him; yet he also sees God as the ‘witness’ in the case (<a href='B:220 16:19'>Job 16:19</a>), and the avenger of Job’s blood (<a href='B:220 19:25'>Job 19:25</a>). Job even asks God to not let the earth cover his blood, so that God as the avenger of Job’s blood may avenge Job’s death (<a href='B:220 16:18'>Job 16:18</a>). Job does not see ‘Satan’ as his slayer, and God as the avenger of his blood. Instead Job – in a quite breathtaking set of associations – sees God in all these things: the slayer, the legal witness to the slayer, the avenger of blood, and the One who will enforce the doing of justice in this case, the One who will not let the earth cover Job’s blood. If Job really believed in a superhuman Satan, in Satan as the bad guy and God as the avenger of the injustice, he surely would’ve expressed himself differently. As Job imagines God as it were taking vengeance on Himself, so he came to portray for all time the way that evil and good are indeed both ultimately from God.</p><p>"Trust" here is the usual Hebrew word translated to wait or be patient (<a href='B:220 13:15'>Job 13:15</a>; <a href='B:220 14:14'>Job 14:14</a>; <a href='B:220 30:26'>Job 30:26</a>). Even if God slew him, Job would still be patient or wait (<a href='B:220 13:15'>Job 13:15</a>), he would patiently wait for his "change" to come at some point after his death (<a href='B:220 14:14'>Job 14:14</a>), and waited for light to somehow come out of his current darkness (<a href='B:220 30:26'>Job 30:26</a>). This was the legendary "patience of Job" which we are bidden follow (<a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a>). He was impatient, but he was "patient" in the Hebrew sense of enduring in faith; faith that even if things didn't work out at all in this life, even if God was apparently unfair in this life, he would be finally restored at the resurrection. This was his 'endurance', and it is a parade example for all who struggle with the justice of God and the incomprehensible problem of suffering:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Nevertheless, I will justify my ways before Him-</p><p> This was what was the matter with Job, and it was this weakness which was removed from him by Yahweh's final appearance. The connection between the two halves of the verse, and the preceding verse, is that Job was willing to be slain by God for justifying himself before God. And he would die, he says, still trusting in God, but willing to die for the sake of self justification. So many are like this today. To accept God's justification of us, His imputed righteousness by grace, is so deeply counter instinctive to men.</p>


text:
<p> This also shall be my salvation-</p><p> LXX "And this shall turn to me for salvation". See on Php_1:19, where this is quoted by Paul. The referent of "this..." is unclear. It could be Job's enduring hope that he would be saved finally, despite life not working out for him in this life (see on :15). This would fit the context in which Paul quotes this in Php_1:19.</p><p>In that a Godless man shall not come before Him-</p><p> Job concludes at this point that he will finally be saved, even though God is apparently against him in this life. And he concludes that therefore he must be Godly and not Godless, seeing no Godless man would be accepted "before Him" finally. Job may be making an oblique reference to how the friends as the "sons of God" came "before Him" in worship (<a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>); but Job implies they would not ultimately do this at the last day. As it happened, Job's intercession for them "before Him" was to mean that they did.</p>


text:
<p> Hear diligently my speech. Let my declaration be in Your ears-</p><p> This may not merely be an appeal for them to pay attention to what he is saying; but rather an appeal for them to "hear" him and repent, taking his appeal deeply within themselves.</p>


text:
<p> See now, I have set my cause in order. I know that I am righteous-</p><p> Job had judged himself, setting in order his legal case ["cause"], but declaring himself righteous (<a href='B:220 13:8'>Job 13:8</a>). By <a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>, Job is realizing that he needs to set his case in order before God; but he can't find God, or get God to engage in this game of judgment. He needed the final appearance of God at the end of the book to review his case, and declare that he is in fact wrong and condemned. But by grace, God will count him as right. He was prepared for this by Elihu's speech in <a href='B:220 37:19'>Job 37:19</a>: "Teach us what we shall tell Him, for we can’t make our case by reason of darkness". "Make our case" is s:w. "set my cause in order".</p>


text:
<p> Who is he who will contend with me? For then would I hold my peace and give up the spirit-</p><p> Job is challenging anyone to come forward and contend with him in court by proving him wrong. If they did, then he would be silent ["hold my peace"] and willingly die. This of course is exactly what happens at the end. God does contend with Job, and he is proven guilty. He lays his hand upon mouth in silence (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>), and we can deduce from his challenge here that he wanted to die. He saw then saved from that position by grace alone. The connection with the exiles is in <a href='B:290 50:8'>Isa 50:8</a>, where a similarly convicted Israel would be justified by Divine grace to the point they could again challenge any to convict them of sin, seeing that "He is near that justifies me".</p><p>Or we can read this quite differently:&nbsp;“If I hold my peace, I shall give up the spirit” (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a> RVmg:). Job felt that the situation he was in forced him to use the words he did, and certainly justified it [we may well have used this reasoning ourselves when justifying the use of bad language]. Job fell into the trap of thinking that his terrible situation somehow allowed him to speak whatever words came into his head. Job felt he hadn’t been ‘fed’ and so he was entitled to “bray” and “low” over his misfortune (<a href='B:220 6:5'>Job 6:5</a>). Because of the weight of his sufferings, he thereby justified the fact that "Therefore have my words been rash (<a href='B:220 6:3'>Job 6:3</a>). Likewise “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit” (<a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>). “I will give free course to my complaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul” (<a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a> RV). Zophar criticizes Job being “full of talk” and speaking “the multitude of words”, “for thou sayest, my doctrine is pure” (<a href='B:220 11:1-4'>Job 11:1-4</a>)- as if Job felt that because he held true doctrine he was justified in pouring out words as he did. “Why should I not be impatient?” (<a href='B:220 21:4'>Job 21:4</a> RV). “Today is my complaint bitter. My stroke is heavier than my groaning” (<a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>)- i:e. his complaining was due to his sufferings. But in the end, Elihu on God’s behalf rebuked him for his wrong words. And Job himself recognized: “I am vile. I will lay mine hand upon my mouth” in regret of his words (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). “Wherefore I loathe my words and repent” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:). He realized his mistake: he had thought that the situation justified his words. Now he hung his head and admitted that there was no justification for speaking in the way he had. Especially in the matter of the tongue, we can so easily justify ourselves; ‘I only said / did it [or didn’t do it] because</p><p>’. And it is all so child-like. Once we leave off all attempts at self-justification, we will face up to our sins.</p>


text:
<p> Only don’t do two things to me; then I will not hide myself from Your face-</p><p> This is so arrogant, to think that he could himself from God. The allusion is to Adam hiding in Eden from God. Job seeks a guarantee from God that he will not be condemned, and then says he will agree to respond to God's call (:22)- another allusion to Adam, who was 'called' to account by God after his sin. It would appear that Job was recognizing that he had sinned, that he knew that the sense of spiritual limbo he was in paralleled Adam's hiding from God in Eden, but that he would only respond to God's call and come out of hiding to confess his sin as he knew God wanted him to, if God withdrew His hand- i:e. relieved him of the immediate trials he was then experiencing. Thus Job was trying to barter with God- wanting Him to withdraw the trials in return for Job making the confession which he knew God wanted. See on <a href='B:220 10:9'>Job 10:9</a>; <a href='B:220 9:17'>Job 9:17</a>.</p>


text:
<p> withdraw Your hand far from me-</p><p> From here to the end of the chapter could be addressed to God, or to the friends. If the latter, then it would appear that Job considers the friends guilty for bringing his sufferings upon him. This would confirm the connection suggested between the friends and the Satan figure. For as soon as Satan is as it were off the stage, the friends appear. See on :20.</p><p>And don’t let Your terror make me afraid-</p><p> Job repeats this fear in <a href='B:220 9:34'>Job 9:34</a>, and Elihu alludes to it when he uses the same phrase in assuring Job that his terror will not make Job afraid (<a href='B:220 33:7'>Job 33:7</a>). The terror is perhaps "the terror of the Lord", the fear of condemnation at the last day (so Paul uses the phrase, <a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a>). That terror should "persuade men" to accept grace, Paul argues. To have that terror unexperienced by men would mean they had no persuasion toward grace.</p>


text:
<p> Then call, and I will answer; or let me speak, and You answer me-</p><p> See on :20. In the end, God does call Job; and he lays his hand upon his mouth in silence. For he has no answer, nor does he desire to speak. For God has already answered him.</p>


text:
<p> How many are my iniquities and sins? Make me know my disobedience and my sin-</p><p> This seems an arrogant denial of sinfulness and a false accusation of God. Job, like the friends, cannot understand suffering as having any reason apart from sin. And he indignantly insists that he has not sinned. This insistence upon never moving beyond the paradigm whereby suffering reflects sin led Job to thereby falsely accuse God. And we can so easily do the same.</p>


text:
<p> Why do You hide Your face, and hold me for Your enemy?-</p><p> The implication of the argument is that Job had a right to see God's unhidden face, because God (so Job thinks) cannot convict Job of sin. Cain was hidden from God's face (s:w. <a href='B:10 4:14'>Gen 4:14</a>); Job again feels he is being treated like Cain, with a mark set upon him (:27); when he is innocent. He totally failed to perceive his sinfulness, and was convicted of it only by the revelation of God at the end- whereby, by grace alone, God no longer hid His face but revealed Himself. God hid His face from the exiles (s:w. <a href='B:50 31:17-18'>Deu 31:17-18</a>; <a href='B:50 32:20'>Deu 32:20</a>; <a href='B:290 8:17'>Isa 8:17</a>; <a href='B:290 54:8'>Isa 54:8</a>; <a href='B:290 59:2'>Isa 59:2</a>; <a href='B:290 64:7'>Isa 64:7</a>; <a href='B:300 33:5'>Jer 33:5</a>; <a href='B:330 39:23'>Eze 39:23</a>), and again, His apparent hiding of His face from Job was not because Job had sinned but because he was suffering as representative of his people.</p>


text:
<p> Will You harass a driven leaf? Will You pursue the dry stubble?-</p><p> Job argues that he is so dead and insignificant that God should stop bothering with him. But this is exactly the point- that God is indeed to interested in the dead and insignificant. The leaf driven by the autumn wind and the stubble after harvest being blown away are all pictures of judgment, and again connect Job to the judged people of Judah in captivity.</p>


text:
<p> For You write bitter things against me, and make me inherit the iniquities of my youth-</p><p> see on <a href='B:220 29:13-14'>Job 29:13-14</a>. Job's denial of sin was to be totally overcome by Yahweh's final appearance. Here he reasons as many do today: 'I am not a sinner, if I did sin, well that was years ago'. We make the passage of years a kind of pseudo atonement for sin. But sin needs atoning, and "just" one sin means death. That is the lesson of Eden.</p>


text:
<p> You also put my feet in the stocks, and mark all my paths. You set a mark on the soles of my feet-</p><p> Job complains that although he is associated with Cain (as in :24), this is not really fair. The mark on him that was a witness wherever he went echoes that which God put on Cain. God's preservation of Cain from death also finds a parallel in Job's feeling that God is preserving him unnaturally (<a href='B:220 3:21-23'>Job 3:21-23</a>; <a href='B:220 10:9-15'>Job 10:9-15</a>). See on <a href='B:220 11:15'>Job 11:15</a>; <a href='B:220 16:17-18'>Job 16:17-18</a>; <a href='B:220 31:39'>Job 31:39</a>. The exiles felt as Job- marked, unable to die, miraculously preserved, and yet imprisoned in stocks. The restoration prophets have the message of deliverance from the stocks, and paths directed back to Zion- towards a restoration as Job experienced. But most of them refused this and remained in Babylon, and those who did return precluded the fulfilment of the restoration prophecies.</p>


text:
<p> though I am decaying like a rotten thing, like a garment that is moth-</p><p>eaten- This is parallel in reference to <a href='B:290 50:9'>Isa 50:9</a>: "Behold, all they shall wax old as a garment, the moth shall eat them up". The "they" are any possible adversaries who might bring charges against us. This had particular relevance to all the adversaries to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. With Yahweh justifying the returned exiles, the court room was effectively empty of adversaries, all charges were to be seen in the perspective of God's ultimate justification of His people (see on <a href='B:290 50:8'>Isa 50:8</a>). These words are also found in <a href='B:220 13:28'>Job 13:28</a>, where it is God who consumes them, as it were manifesting Himself in a tiny moth. We find the same ideas in <a href='B:290 51:6'>Isa 51:6</a>, where the "they" is the 'heavens and earth' of any system, be it Persia / Babylon or an unbelieving Jewish system, which is adversarial to God's people and purpose. The contrast is with how the clothing of Israel in the wilderness did not "wax old" (s:w. <a href='B:50 8:4'>Deu 8:4</a>; <a href='B:50 29:5'>Deu 29:5</a>; <a href='B:160 9:21'>Neh 9:21</a>). The exodus and journey to the promised land is repeatedly alluded to in Isaiah as a pattern for the exiles to follow in returning to Judah, and for us in our exodus from this world and journey towards the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p> Man, who is born of a woman, is of few days, and full of trouble-</p><p> Job slips back into the argument that human nature or condition is such that behaviour doesn't matter, as it will all soon be over anyway; and so it is God's problem if He wastes His time so closely concerned with our lives (:3). Job has at times a clearer view of the future, even looking forward to resurrection and judgment. But his faith in that goes up and down, with his depression always clawing him back towards a negative view of the outcome facing him.</p>


text:
<p> He comes forth like a flower, and is cut down. He also flees like a shadow, and doesn’t continue-</p><p> <a href='B:290 37:27'>Isa 37:27</a> speaks of how the nations around Judah at Hezekiah's time were like this, and were of "small power", s:w. "few" in <a href='B:220 14:1'>Job 14:1</a>. Job was reasoning as if he were just any man with human nature. What he says about the brevity and frailty of life is true as far as it stands; but he fails to see that God's way with His chosen give them hope beyond the narrow limits of human nature. Hence the connection with Hezekiah continues- in his case, the shadow did "continue", its fleeing was "brought back" (<a href='B:290 38:8'>Isa 38:8</a>). <a href='B:290 40:7-8'>Isa 40:7-8</a> specifically says that although the flower is cut down, the word of restoration would endure for ever.</p>


text:
<p> Do You open your eyes on such a one, and bring me into judgment with You?-</p><p> I noted on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a> that the 'Satan' figure refers to both fellow worshippers and also their Angelic representative in the heavenly throne room. The "eyes" of the Lord are His angels, and Job seems to be asking why God is using His Angel-eyes to take such a special interest in him; why God has asked His Angel to "consider My servant Job". When Job asks God to ‘look away’ from him, or remove His eyes from him (<a href='B:220 7:8'>Job 7:8</a>; <a href='B:220 7:19'>Job 7:19</a> RV and frequently in Job), this would then be understood as a reference to God’s Angel-eyes, whom Job perceived as bringing about his problems. The restoration prophecy of <a href='B:450 12:4'>Zec 12:4</a> turns all this around, saying that Yahweh will "open My eyes upon the house of Judah" to restore them.</p>


text:
<p> Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one-</p><p> This is not to say that all born of a woman must be morally unclean; for all we posit about human nature we say about the Lord Jesus, who fully had human nature, and yet was holy and undefiled. The LXX may be better, therefore: "For who shall be pure from uncleanness? not even one". And in any case, Job is wrongly assuming things about the human condition at this point. God doesn't make man a laughing stock or target practice, for example, nor is man without hope of resurrection as Job elsewhere thinks (:10). And there is a way for sinful man to be purged from uncleanness, as the law of Moses taught. It was and is a lame excuse to blame any human sin upon our nature.</p>


text:
<p> Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months is with You, and You have appointed his bounds that he can’t pass-</p><p> This may be a reference to the 'wonderful numberer' Angel of <a href='B:340 8:13'>Dan 8:13</a> who controls the timing of all things. LXX "if even his life should be but one day upon the earth: and his months are numbered by him: thou hast appointed him for a time, and he shall by no means exceed it". The restoration prophets interpret this more positively, in that the appointed time was set to favour Zion (<a href='B:230 102:13'>Psa 102:13</a>)- just as a time was set for the end bounds of Job's sufferings. "Determined" is the word used for the 'determined time' of Judah's judgment and restoration (<a href='B:290 10:22-23'>Isa 10:22-23</a>; <a href='B:290 28:22'>Isa 28:22</a>; <a href='B:340 9:27'>Dan 9:27</a>; <a href='B:340 11:36'>Dan 11:36</a>). "Bounds" is the word translated "appoint me a set time" in :13. Job longed for that point to come, in that he assumed that the bound or end of his suffering was in death. When God finally appears, that bound or set time is reached- and by pure grace, Job is restored and not slain in death. And this was what could have happened for the exiles when the appointed 70 year period ended.</p>


text:
<p> look away from him, that he may rest, until he shall accomplish, as a hireling, his day-</p><p> Job's faith in resurrection or future restoration comes and goes; in :13 he looks for a future "set time" of change of fortune, but now he just longs for death, counting the days toward it, considering that there is more hope of a tree reviving than of human restoration (:7-10). The way restoration finally comes for Job is therefore proof enough that God doesn't require perfect faith.</p>


text:
<p> For there is hope for a tree, If it is cut down, that it will sprout again, that the tender branch of it will not cease-</p><p> Job's idea that a tree will revive because it can sprout again with a "tender branch" is contrasted in his own mind with how he considers he doesn't have such hope (:10). However, these very images are reworked into a positive take by the restoration prophets. The revived Judah were indeed to have a "tender branch", a Messiah figure. Zerubbabel, the 'sprout from Babylon', could have fulfilled the prophecies in the sort term. There was indeed "hope" for the tree of Judah, once cut down by Babylon; just as finally, we are to see that Job also was "cut down" and yet sprouted again at his restoration.</p><p>The imagery is taken over in <a href='B:290 6:13'>Isa 6:13</a>: "If there is a tenth left in it, that also will in turn be consumed: as a terebinth, and as an oak, whose stump remains when they are felled; so the holy seed is its stump". The idea is of new life being sown from a minority (ten per cent?) as a result of the destruction of the majority. The image is similar to that of the Messianic "Branch" shooting forth from the decaying stump of the house of David. A ten percent minority is also envisaged in <a href='B:370 5:3'>Amo 5:3</a>; <a href='B:370 6:9-10'>Amo 6:9-10</a>. The point is that as those trees even when cut down retain the seed in their roots, which will again spring up into a great tree, so out of the judgments to come upon Judah there would arise a remnant who would grow up into the great tree of God's restored Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p> Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stock dies in the ground-</p><p> "Earth" is eretz, the land (of Israel). If merely "soil" was intended, a different word would have been used. Again, we see the drama of Job has been tweaked, under Divine inspiration, to become the narrative for the exiles. The root had indeed largely died in the land at the time of the Babylonian invasion, but it still had some life and would "bud" again (<a href='B:220 14:9'>Job 14:9</a>). Job was the man with great roots who had been cut down but hadn't completely died (<a href='B:220 8:17'>Job 8:17</a>); his roots had been dried up (<a href='B:220 18:16'>Job 18:16</a>; <a href='B:220 29:19'>Job 29:19</a>). He represented Judah, whose roots were throughout the land as a tree transplanted by God (s:w. <a href='B:230 80:9'>Psa 80:9</a>). Those roots were withered by the invasions (<a href='B:290 5:24'>Isa 5:24</a>), but out of those dry roots would grow up a "tender plant / branch" (<a href='B:290 11:1'>Isa 11:1</a>; <a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a>; <a href='B:290 53:2'>Isa 53:2</a>), using the same word for "tender" as in <a href='B:220 14:7'>Job 14:7</a>. This Messianic suffering servant was to be based upon Job, and representative of all God's restored people. They were to again spread their roots in the land of promise in a restored Kingdom (<a href='B:290 37:31'>Isa 37:31</a>; <a href='B:300 17:8'>Jer 17:8</a>), after the pattern of Job's restoration.</p>


text:
<p> yet through the scent of water it will bud, and put forth boughs like a plant-</p><p> Perhaps God almost playfully responds to this by talking of how oceans of waters are under His control. Clearly Job's restoration was typical of how the restored Israel could "bud" and fill the land with fruit (s:w. <a href='B:290 27:6'>Isa 27:6</a>; <a href='B:290 35:1-2'>Isa 35:1-2</a>; <a href='B:290 66:14'>Isa 66:14</a>; <a href='B:350 14:5'>Hos 14:5</a>; <a href='B:350 14:7'>Hos 14:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p> But man dies, and is laid low. Yes, man gives up the spirit, and where is he?-</p><p> I pointed out on :4 that Job's depression leads him to a wrong understanding of the human condition; and here we have another example, in his denial of any hope of resurrection of the body (as in :12); even though by <a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a> he has come to believe in it, and even by :13 he has returned to some idea of it. Again we see how both Job and the friends have truth on many points, but framed in the wrong context. Death is indeed unconsciousness; but Job is overlooking the resurrection of the body and future restoration, just as the exiles were focused only upon their present realities and not eternal ones.</p>


text:
<p> As the waters fail from the sea, and the river wastes and dries up-</p><p> The theme of 'drying up' or 'withering' is significant. Bildad considers Job to have been 'dried up' by God's judgment (<a href='B:220 8:12'>Job 8:12</a>), and the word is used of how God withered or dried up Judah at the hands of their invaders (<a href='B:300 12:4'>Jer 12:4</a>; <a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; <a href='B:330 17:9-10'>Eze 17:9-10</a>; <a href='B:330 17:24'>Eze 17:24</a>; <a href='B:450 11:17'>Zec 11:17</a>; <a href='B:310 4:8'>Lam 4:8</a>; <a href='B:290 40:7-8'>Isa 40:7-8</a> - although the prophetic word of God requiring their restoration would endure, despite their drying up). The dry bones of Judah in captivity were withered or dried up (<a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>). So Job's 'drying up' was again, a sharing in the representative suffering of God's people. Job's personal response to his 'drying up' was to reflect that God dries up waters and also sends them forth as floods (<a href='B:220 12:15'>Job 12:15</a> s:w:); He can give and He can take, just as Job had initially realized (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>). Just as He dried up Job / Israel, so He could abundantly send forth waters; just as He did at the Red Sea. Restoration and salvation was just as easy for Him as destruction, to put it another way. The drying up of Job was also understood by him as referring to his death (<a href='B:220 14:11'>Job 14:11</a>), but God could raise him from the dead and have a desire to him again (<a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). Eliphaz wrongly argues that the Divine 'drying up' of a person means permanent extinction (<a href='B:220 15:30'>Job 15:30</a>), as does Bildad (<a href='B:220 18:16'>Job 18:16</a>); but Job always sees the 'drying up' as part of a Divine action which also has a counterpart, the pouring out again of waters, or resurrection of the dried up, withered bones. Likewise Judah in captivity thought that their drying up, their dry bones, were incapable of revival (<a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>); but the message is that they could indeed be revived, and their drying up was but a presage to their eternal revival:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p> so man lies down and doesn’t rise. Until the heavens are no more, they shall not awake, nor be roused out of their sleep-</p><p> Job was wrong to deny so dogmatically the hope of resurrection; see on :10. But he has the closeness of relationship with God to ask that in fact his case there would be a resurrection (:13), and by <a href='B:220 19:25-27'>Job 19:25-27</a> he is thoroughly convinced there will be. We hereby see his growth in understanding throughout the book.</p>


text:
<p> Oh that You would hide me in Sheol, that You would keep me secret, until Your wrath is past-</p><p> The desires of Job were met, at least potentially, in God's willingness to hide the exiles from further personal suffering when Babylon fell, and to preserve them for His restored Kingdom. For these words are surely alluded to in <a href='B:290 26:20'>Isa 26:20</a>: "Come, My people, enter into your rooms, and shut your doors behind you. Hide yourself for a little moment, until the indignation is past".</p><p>That You would appoint me a set time, and remember me!-</p><p> As noted on :5, that "set time" corresponds with Job's restoration, just as the exiles were to be restored at the end of 70 years "set time". See on <a href='B:220 7:1'>Job 7:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p> If a man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my warfare would I wait, until my release should come-</p><p> Job recognized that there would come a time when "My change come (when) Thou shalt call, and I will answer Thee: (I know) Thou wilt have a desire to the work of Thine hands" (<a href='B:220 14:14-15'>Job 14:14-15</a> AV). It would appear from this that Job feels that there will be a call to resurrection corresponding to God's call of Adam out of hiding, after which he would confess his sins- i:e. at the judgement. God's calling to Job out of the whirlwind and Job's subsequent confession at the end of the book again encourages us to see "the end of the Lord" with Job as pointing forward to our justification at the day of judgement and the&nbsp;Kingdom, as well as the restoration possible for the exiles. See on <a href='B:220 14:20'>Job 14:20</a>.</p><p>Even if God slew him, Job would still be patient or wait (<a href='B:220 13:15'>Job 13:15</a>), he would 'patiently wait' for his "release" (AV "change") to come at some point after his death (<a href='B:220 14:14'>Job 14:14</a>), and waited for light to somehow come out of his current darkness (<a href='B:220 30:26'>Job 30:26</a>). This was the legendary "patience of Job" which we are bidden follow (<a href='B:660 5:11'>Jas 5:11</a>). He was impatient, but he was "patient" in the Hebrew sense of enduring in faith; faith that even if things didn't work out at all in this life, even if God was apparently unfair in this life, he would be finally restored at the resurrection. This was his 'endurance', and it is a parade example for all who struggle with the justice of God and the incomprehensible problem of suffering:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p> You would call, and I would answer You. You would have a desire to the work of Your hands-</p><p> Despite all his apparently bitter words against God, Job realizes that finally, "God is love". For he uses a very tender expression for how he believes when God finally calls him to judgment, God will have a "desire" to Job as His very own created handiwork. It was 'just' that God was apparently acting very differently at that time in Job's mortal life. This is one implication of understanding that we are God's created beings, made in His image and likeness, and not mere results of random evolutionary chance. If indeed we are created by Him in His image, then He has a tenderness toward us, ultimately.</p>


text:
<p> But now You number my steps. Don’t You watch over my sin?-</p><p> This was how Job felt in this life, but he has prefaced this in :15 by saying that he believes that finally God would call him to judgment and show great tenderness to him. That indeed was what happened when God appeared at the end, speaking positively of the Job who had well nigh cursed Him, and restoring him. And the exiles could have experienced the same grace. We note that Job is slowly moving towards the acceptance that he does have "my sin", a realization which will come to full term when God finally appears. Earlier he has spoken as if he has nothing to apologize for before God.</p>


text:
<p> My disobedience is sealed up in a bag. You fasten up my iniquity-</p><p> LXX "and marked if I have been guilty of any transgression unawares". Like David, Job felt that God took note of sins of ignorance. But although he is now beginning to accept his sinfulness, he is justifying it. He has argued that his human nature is an excuse, and now he deploys the argument that any sin found in him would be a mere sin of ignorance. He has yet to come to the final confession of sin he makes at the end, when he ceases all attempts at self-justification before the marvel of God's justification of him.</p>


text:
<p> But the mountain falling comes to nothing. The rock is removed out of its place-</p><p> We note the progression from mountain to rocks to stones to dust (:19). Job saw man's being brought to dust as reflected in the process of erosion which can remove the greatest mountains. Again, Job is saying the truth but within the wrong framework. For although God indeed brings to dust, He revives from the dust and can work any number and nature of new creations. Again, the restoration prophets have a positive take on this; the great mountain which God would surely remove was Babylon, and He would establish the mountain of His restored people and Kingdom in Zion (<a href='B:450 4:7'>Zec 4:7</a>; <a href='B:340 2:45'>Dan 2:45</a>). See on <a href='B:220 18:4'>Job 18:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p> the waters wear away the stones. The torrents of it wash away the dust of the earth. So You destroy the hope of man-</p><p> See on :18. Originally, Job believed that his "hope" was predicated upon his upright ways (<a href='B:220 4:6'>Job 4:6</a>). But Job through his sufferings comes to feel he now has no "hope" (<a href='B:220 7:6'>Job 7:6</a>; <a href='B:220 14:19'>Job 14:19</a>; <a href='B:220 17:15'>Job 17:15</a>; <a href='B:220 19:10'>Job 19:10</a>). The friends suggest that Job had only the "hope" of the hypocrite, and this "hope" would perish (<a href='B:220 4:6'>Job 4:6</a>; <a href='B:220 8:13'>Job 8:13</a>; <a href='B:220 27:8'>Job 27:8</a>). Job had integrity, and on that basis he thought he had "hope". He suffered, and he lost that "hope", because he assumed that his sufferings meant that he was not in fact righteous. And yet he often reflects that he is righteous and is suffering unjustly. And so he is led to the realization that the "hope" of the righteous is by God's grace and not because of the "integrity of [Job's] ways". Judah in captivity likewise lost their "hope" (<a href='B:330 19:5'>Eze 19:5</a>; <a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>). But the message of the restoration prophets was that "there is hope in your end" (<a href='B:300 31:17'>Jer 31:17</a>); they were prisoners or exiles in "hope" (<a href='B:450 9:12'>Zec 9:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p> You forever prevail against him, and he departs. You change his face, and send him away-</p><p> LXX "thou settest thy face against him, and sendest him away", relevant to the sending away of Judah into captivity with the face of God hidden from them and against them. See on :18. In his humbler moments Job recognized that he was a sinner and deserved Adam's punishment of being sent out of Eden; or also to Cain's countenance falling and then being sent away from God. See on <a href='B:220 31:33'>Job 31:33</a>; <a href='B:220 9:17'>Job 9:17</a>; <a href='B:220 10:9'>Job 10:9</a>. But Job makes one very wrong statement here, although 'just' one word: "forever". God does not send away forever. This was the whole message of the restoration prophets.</p>


text:
<p> His sons come to honour, and he doesn’t know it. They are brought low, but he doesn’t perceive it about them-</p><p> This may simply be a reference to the numbness Job still felt about the bringing low of his own sons.</p>


text:
<p> But his flesh on him has pain, and his soul within him mourns- This clearly refers to Job personally; he saw himself as representative of the whole body of God's people, or all mankind. The captive exiles likewise 'mourned' (s:w. <a href='B:150 10:6'>Ezr 10:6</a>; <a href='B:160 1:4'>Neh 1:4</a>), but were urged not to mourn (<a href='B:160 8:9'>Neh 8:9</a>) because it was God's intention to restore them; after the pattern of Job.</p>


text:
<p> Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered-</p><p> Eliphaz in this speech clearly objects to Job having made any comeback whatsoever on what the friends have so far said. This is so often the case in supposed 'dialogue'; once people are persuaded of their own narrative, they accuse any dissent therefrom to be arrogance. Which is in turn really just their own pride.</p>


text:
<p> Should a wise man answer with vain knowledge, and fill himself with the east wind?-</p><p> This is an allusion to inspiration, seeing that "wind" in Hebrew also means 'spirit'. He implies that he and the friends are Divinely inspired, whereas Job is not. Yet the friends state often that they are merely saying what the wise sages thought. But as often happens, by reason of merely repeating their own narrative they become persuaded of its truth and beauty and imply that in fact they are speaking on God's behalf, inspired by Him, and any opposition thereto is therefore uninspired and blasphemous. We note Job never claims to be inspired by God, his speeches are a struggle with God rather than a man claiming Divine inspiration.</p>


text:
<p> Should he reason with unprofitable talk, or with speeches with which he can do no good?-</p><p> This reflects a very utilitarian view of grief and language, as if even in grief a man is supposed to say things which "do good", which somehow put things right. The friends change very quickly from their initial silent grief with Job, and become very aggressive. They cannot cope with their narrative being upset, or being rejected. And then all human sympathy for the individual suffering person goes out of the window.</p>


text:
<p> Yes, you do away with fear, and hinder devotion before God-</p><p> This would appear to be criticism of Job's confidence that he will finally be accepted by God, even if not in this life. Whatever Job said was found wrong by the friends, and this whole drama is a parade example of how dialogue breaks down to the point that every word said is taken issue with and found wrong; and then it is extrapolated to positions never intended by the speaker. In this case, Job's apparent confidence of final acceptance is extrapolated to mean that he is hindering or 'limiting' the power of prayer ["devotion"] to God.</p>


text:
<p> For your iniquity teaches your mouth, and you choose the language of the crafty-</p><p> As noted on :4, the friends were extrapolating from Job's words to positions they imputed to him which were totally untrue. He was hardly "crafty", he blurts out whatever he feels at the moment, oscillating between faith in resurrection and utter denial of it. The whole thing is an object lesson in how not to dialogue.</p>


text:
<p> Your own mouth condemns you, and not I. Yes, your own lips testify against you-</p><p> Although the context of these words is that Eliphaz is twisting Job's words against him (see on :3-5), he states a truth. And this is picked up by the Lord in His words to the one-talent man in the parable: "Out of your own mouth will I judge / condemn you" (<a href='B:490 19:22'>Luk 19:22</a>). The man was condemned for keeping his talent (his spiritual knowledge of the word) to himself rather than sharing it with others. Eliphaz proceeds to make the same rebuke of Job- although he had "heard the secret of God", which may imply the gift of prophesying the word seeing that Job was a prophet, he instead "restrained wisdom unto thyself" (:8 AV). This confirms that the one talent man of the parable is based on Job, thus making him represent the rejected at judgement. No doubt the primary application of the one talent man was to the Jewish believers of Christ's day who did not capitalize on the talent they already had. The taking away of the talent and its being given to others recalls the Kingdom (i:e. the Gospel of the Kingdom) being taken from the Jews and being given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it (cp. trading the talent).</p>


text:
<p> Are you the first man who was born? Or were you brought forth before the hills?-</p><p> The friends ridiculed Job's evident comparison of himself with Adam: "Are you (the emphasis is on that phrase) the first man (Adam; <a href='B:530 15:45'>1Co 15:45</a> alludes here) who was born?". See on <a href='B:220 31:33'>Job 31:33</a>; <a href='B:220 9:17'>Job 9:17</a>; <a href='B:220 10:9'>Job 10:9</a>. But the idea is that there was more wisdom the further back you went; the further back in history, and also the longer you had lived, the more likely you were to have wisdom. This is a very weak argument; for Adam messed up, and the wisdom of sages is often at variance with God's wisdom.</p>


text:
<p> Have you heard the secret counsel of God? Do you limit wisdom to yourself?-</p><p> &nbsp;“Dost thou hearken in the council of God?” (<a href='B:220 15:8'>Job 15:8</a> RVmg:) is the language of the Heavenly throne room- note how this is said in the context of Job, where we have the most classic statement of the operation of the court of heaven in the opening chapters. See on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>. If indeed the friends were the "sons of God" of the prologue, the fellow worshippers who were influenced by the discussion between God and the 'Satan' figure (who was also a human worshipper, it seems, although with Angelic representation in the court of heaven). If indeed all this is in view, the argument would be that Job was wrong to be out of step with the argument of the Satan. Eliphaz's argument would then be that indeed he was only faithful to God because God had blessed him, and Job was then wrong to deny it.</p><p>Or the idea may be that Job was not the only one who had heard God's counsel (:9); they had also heard it. And yet they did not accurately speak forth what they had heard, or were even inspired with, as Job did (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p> What do you know, that we don’t know? What do you understand, which is not in us?-</p><p> This is all a parade example of how dialogue and inter-personal discussion goes so wrong. The friends were persuaded that their narrative was right, and Job couldn't teach them anything. Any new perspective he might offer was therefore treated as an example of his pride and assuming knowledge. But all this arose from their idea that 'truth' was a closed circle of ideas which they possessed and anything outside of it was just presumed knowledge. And human nature hasn't changed to this day, especially with those who consider that they hold absolute truth.</p>


text:
<p> With us are both the gray-</p><p>headed and the very aged men, much elder than your father-</p><p> This implies Job's father was still alive. Again, the source of truth is seen as predicated upon how long a person has lived. Human experience and developed philosophy was seen as the authority, rather than Divine revelation. And this is why their arguments are reduced to nothing by the final appearance of God speaking His own words.</p>


text:
<p> Are the consolations of God too small for you, even the word that is gentle toward you?-</p><p> LXX "Thou hast been scourged for but few of thy sins: thou hast spoken haughtily and extravagantly", just as Ezra says that Judah had suffered less than their sins deserved (<a href='B:150 9:13'>Ezr 9:13</a>). Again, although what Eliphaz says is true so far as it goes, he is totally wrong because he fails to perceive that the grace of being punished less than sin deserves is but a prelude to glorious restoration.</p>


text:
<p> Why does your heart carry you away? Why do your eyes flash-</p><p> Job was indeed angry, with flashing eyes. But the expression of emotion is misinterpreted as being angry with God (:13). God's special creation, Leviathan, also had flashing eyes (<a href='B:220 41:18-19'>Job 41:18-19</a>). Perhaps this is God's way of saying that eyes flashing with anger is not necessarily sinful of itself, and is all part of the natural created order, and is not worthy of rebuke in itself. This is said against the backdrop of a Bedouin culture where expressions of emotion were only to be made in appropriate ways.</p>


text:
<p> that you turn your spirit against God, and let such words go out of your mouth?-</p><p> As the speeches of the friends continue, they engage less and less with Job's actual words. They argue against their perceptions of his position and deal in vague generalities. This again is typical of the breakdown in meaningful dialogue which we see all around us, whereby the participants become confirmed in their positions and build up an image of their opponent in their mind which gets progressively awful and also the more confirmed as true in their view.</p>


text:
<p> What is man, that he should be clean? What is he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?-</p><p> Here and in :15, Eliphaz is just repeating what he has said in <a href='B:220 4:17-19'>Job 4:17-19</a>. I noted there the problems with his ideas, and how questionable it was that he really had the vision he claimed, and in any case, the contents of it contradict Bible teaching elsewhere so it was not of God. And again, this is how human relationships break down, as discussed on :13. The participants revert to their old arguments and refuse to engage with what is being said by their opponent, whom they progressively demonize. Eliphaz's argument that man is inevitably sinful is used to desperately disprove Job's perceived claim of being sinless. But the argument also convicts Eliphaz of sin, as he too was human.</p>


text:
<p> Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones. Yes, the heavens are not clean in His sight-</p><p> Eliphaz is just repeating what he has said in <a href='B:220 4:17-19'>Job 4:17-19</a>. I noted there the problems with his ideas, and how questionable it was that he really had the vision he claimed, and in any case, the contents of it contradict Bible teaching elsewhere so it was not of God.</p><p>It can be argued that the book of Job is a dialogue concerning evil and suffering, with three popular views being represented by the three friends. These views are examined and corrected by the personal history of Job, as well as by the epilogue and prologue to the book. Eliphaz seems to be representative of the idea that Job is being hit by supernaturally controlled evil- Eliphaz speaks of a force of darkness (<a href='B:220 22:10-11'>Job 22:10-11</a>) and sinful or faulty Angels living in an unclean Heaven (<a href='B:220 4:18'>Job 4:18</a>; <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>). Yet the answer to all this is that the Satan figure is under God's control, all Job's misfortunes come from God and His Angels- one of whom may have been called 'the adversary' ('Satan')- are in fact perfectly obedient to Him and not disobedient. And finally, Eliphaz and the friends are rebuked for their various wrong understandings, with God declaring Himself supreme and ultimate sovereign. Likewise Bildad's view of Angels in <a href='B:220 25:5'>Job 25:5</a> "The stars are not pure in God's eyes" is corrected by God in <a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a>, when He says that "the morning stars sang together and all the Sons of God shouted for joy".</p><p>The question "How can a man be just with God?" is the same question as 'How can a man ever be clean before a perfect God?', and is repeated in this form in <a href='B:220 9:30'>Job 9:30</a>; <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>; <a href='B:220 25:5'>Job 25:5</a>; here, we have the claim that even heaven is unclean before God:&nbsp;The exiles had considered themselves cleansed whiter than snow because of their obedience to some parts of the Mosaic law (<a href='B:310 4:7'>Lam 4:7</a>), but failed to accept that such cleansing to be whiter than snow is only possible by doing what David did, and casting ourselves upon God's grace outside of justification by works (<a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a>). Job was to learn this lesson at the end. It was this offer which was made to Job just as it was to Judah under judgment (<a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p> how much less one who is abominable and corrupt, a man who drinks iniquity like water!-</p><p> Eliphaz seems to be claiming this about all humanity, in order to desperately prove Job wrong in claiming to be sinless (as Eliphaz liked to perceive Job's words). There is error all around here. For Job was not claiming to be sinless, and Eliphaz was himself human, so his argument that we are all inevitable sinners would apply to himself. But self-awareness and humility aren't present in him; he is driven to prove Job wrong, and he will use any argument to do so. The simple truth is as Job put it- God has a tender desire to man, the work of His hands (<a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). And whatever we posit about human nature, we say about the Lord Jesus. He fully shared that nature and yet was holy, harmless and undefiled (<a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a>). Man by nature, just standing there as flesh and blood before God, is not "abominable" to Him of himself. It is sin which is the problem; and sin is not inevitable. We must bear full responsibility for our sins and cannot just pass them off as an inevitable function of our humanity. The wrong view of human nature held by the friends affected their view of Job and people in practice. They claim man is "abominable" to God, and therefore the same word is used of how they abhorred Job, treating him as "abominable" (<a href='B:220 19:19'>Job 19:19</a>; <a href='B:220 30:10'>Job 30:10</a>). The lower our view of human nature, the more likely we are to despise human beings rather than value them and speak well of them because they are made in the image of God (<a href='B:660 3:9'>Jas 3:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p> I will show you, listen to me; that which I have seen I will declare-</p><p> Eliphaz again is appealing to his supposed vision which he "saw", first referenced by him in <a href='B:220 4:17-19'>Job 4:17-19</a>. I noted there the problems with his ideas, and how questionable it was that he really had the vision he claimed, and in any case, the contents of it contradict Bible teaching elsewhere so it was not of God.</p>


text:
<p> which wise men have told by their fathers, and have not hidden it-</p><p> Eliphaz is careful to emphasize that what he 'has seen' in his vision is perfectly in line with the wisdom of the sages of old. This is so important in legalistic societies- to always speak in line with accepted, historical wisdom. There is no humility in this, no openness to truth or to the possibility that Divine revelation may in fact contradict all we once held as 'truth'. This is the power of God's final appearance and words at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> to whom alone the land was given, and no stranger passed among them-</p><p> Eliphaz claims that his "fathers" were given the eretz alone and no other ethnic group. This could sound like an early form of the land dispute amongst the children of Abraham which we see to this day. We marvel at the relevance of this ancient book. Adding this point was irrelevant as to whether Eliphaz is speaking rightly about God, but for him it was obviously significant. </p>


text:
<p> the wicked man writhes in pain all his days, even the number of years that are laid up for the oppressor-</p><p> Clearly he has Job in view, who was oppressed by raiders, and was apparently writhing in pain constantly. Eliphaz suggests that Job must suffer this for a Divinely decreed "number of years". This is the phrase used of the number of years Judah and Israel were to suffer for their sins in exile at the hands of their oppressors (<a href='B:330 4:5'>Eze 4:5</a>; <a href='B:340 9:2'>Dan 9:2</a>). "Laid up" is AV "hidden". Perhaps Elihu alludes to this when he uses the same phrase to say that "the number of years" cannot be "searched out" because God is great (<a href='B:220 36:26'>Job 36:26</a>). This may refer to how Daniel tried to search out the number of years Judah ought to be in captivity, and had to conclude that the 70 years time period was flexible, depending upon Judah's repentance and other preconditions. We note <a href='B:330 4:5'>Eze 4:5</a> gives a different period:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p> A sound of terrors is in his ears. In prosperity the destroyer shall come on him-</p><p> In God's final revelation to the friends and Job, they all heard the terrifying sound of the approaching theophany in the thunderstorm. They were thereby convicted of Divine judgment, expressed in their own terms.</p>&nbsp;<p>Eliphaz says that Job's sudden problems amid his prosperity were what would happen to all the wicked. This seems to be alluded to in <a href='B:590 5:3'>1Th 5:3</a> concerning the sudden destruction of rich, spiritually self confident believers- but at the Lord's coming, not in this life. Again we see the friends stating things which are true as far as they go, but framing them in a context which makes them untrue; and this can happen today.</p><p>The friends insist that "the destroyer" [by which they surely meant an early equivalent to 'the devil' of popular belief today] had touched Job- whereas Job insists that it is God who had destroyed him (<a href='B:220 15:21'>Job 15:21</a> cp. 19:10; 13:21), perhaps through the Divine Angel known as "the destroyer" (<a href='B:530 10:10'>1Co 10:10</a>). I suggested on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a> that the 'Satan' may have reference to an obedient Divine Angel. In some ways the book of Job is a deconstruction of the popular Persian and Canaanite myths about a 'satan' figure. Job, both in the story of his sufferings and his specific words, seeks to demonstrate that the essential issues in life is being "just with God", and not whether or not we are touched by the hand of an evil being; for the hand of God which touched Job (<a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>) is the hand of 'satan' into whom God delivered Job temporarily (<a href='B:220 1:12'>Job 1:12</a>). Job says that the attitude of the friends is wrong- they should be looking into themselves, rather than fantasizing about the action of some unseen evil being they imagined: "Ye should say, Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in me?... know that there is a [personal] judgment" (<a href='B:220 19:28-29'>Job 19:28-29</a>).</p>


text:
<p> He doesn’t believe that he shall return out of darkness. He is waited for by the sword-</p><p> The oblique references to Job continue. He has oscillated between faith in a return from the darkness of death, and yet disbelief in this. Uncharitably, Eliphaz focuses upon the low points of his statements. This too can be how we handle interaction with others- seizing upon their lowest points. Job was constantly writhing in pain (:20), so to focus upon his words at his lowest points shows a wilful desire to judge and not save him. We need to learn from this not to mentally record every word spoken in a dialogue- if we are truly seeking to help and restore, rather than judge. Eliphaz was sure that it was only a matter of time before the sword of Divine judgment fell upon Job; hence God's appearance and justification of Job was so fatal for Eliphaz.</p>


text:
<p> He wanders abroad for bread, saying, ‘Where is it?’. He knows that the day of darkness is ready at his hand-</p><p> LXX "and a dark day shall carry him away as with a whirlwind"; the language of Judah's destruction, and also alluding to Job's sons being slain by a whirlwind. Eliphaz implies that that is coming for Job too. It could seem from what Eliphaz says that Job was even driven to begging for bread by this point.</p> <p> They prevail against him, as a king ready to the battle-</p><p> Eliphaz claims that God is preparing to judge Job like a king ready to ride into the battle. But God's later revelation includes Him demonstrating that man cannot participate successfully in any battle with what God has willed (<a href='B:220 41:8'>Job 41:8</a>), and the horse runs foolishly into battle with no regard for consequence (<a href='B:220 39:25'>Job 39:25</a>). The connection with the words of Eliphaz may be in that it was effectively Eliphaz who was rushing into battle to do judgment against Job; and he was acting like the foolish horse, forgetting that God alone will fight in the battle, and win (<a href='B:220 38:23'>Job 38:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p> They prevail against him, as a king ready to the battle-</p><p> Eliphaz claims that God is preparing to judge Job like a king ready to ride into the battle. But God's later revelation includes Him demonstrating that man cannot participate successfully in any battle with what God has willed (<a href='B:220 41:8'>Job 41:8</a>), and the horse runs foolishly into battle with no regard for consequence (<a href='B:220 39:25'>Job 39:25</a>). The connection with the words of Eliphaz may be in that it was effectively Eliphaz who was rushing into battle to do judgment against Job; and he was acting like the foolish horse, forgetting that God alone will fight in the battle, and win (<a href='B:220 38:23'>Job 38:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Because he has stretched out his hand against God, and behaves himself proudly against the Almighty-</p><p> A noted above, Eliphaz is imputing positions to Job, extrapolating from Eliphaz's general impression of Job's positions and turning them into something far removed from reality- in this case, accusing Job of actively stretching out his hand against God. To stretch out the arm is an idiom for judging (<a href='B:300 6:12'>Jer 6:12</a> and often). The idea is that Job has judged God. Hence the first half of the verse reflects the second half- he has behaved proudly against God.</p>


text:
<p> he runs at Him with a stiff neck, with the thick shields of his bucklers-</p><p> As noted on <a href='B:220 15:25'>:25</a>, this again is a grotesque extrapolation from Job's positions, claiming that he is proactively against God, charging at Him as a fully armed solider charges at an enemy.</p>


text:
<p> because he has covered his face with his fatness, and gathered fat on his thighs-</p><p> Eliphaz refers to how Job was once full fleshed because of the good life he enjoyed, whereas now he was emaciated and begging for bread (<a href='B:220 15:23'>:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p> He has lived in desolate cities, in houses which no one inhabited, which were ready to become heaps-</p><p> LXX "and what they have prepared, others shall carry away"- the language of the Babylonian captivity and the curses for disobedience to the covenant. Job had not broken the covenant, but is suffering as if he had, as the representative suffering servant. It could be implied that Job was now living in deserted homes in deserted settlements, as well as begging for bread (<a href='B:220 15:23'>:23</a>). This would all imply a period of time during which the historical Job suffered.</p>


text:
<p> He shall not be rich, neither shall his substance continue, neither shall their possessions be extended on the earth-</p><p> The "substance" of Israel would continue blessed if they continued obedient (<a href='B:50 33:11'>Deu 33:11</a> s:w:) and be removed if they were not (s:w. <a href='B:290 10:14'>Isa 10:14</a>; <a href='B:300 15:13'>Jer 15:13</a>). Again we see Job suffering as the representative of sinful Israel whilst himself innocent, all looking forward to the nature of the Lord's work for us as the ultimate suffering servant.</p>


text:
<p> He shall not depart out of darkness-</p><p> Job had perceived that God would and could bring light out of darkness (<a href='B:220 12:22'>Job 12:22</a>). To predict that the darkness was endless is presented here as a major sin and mistaken position. And so it was for those who thought the darkness of exile in Babylon could never end.</p><p>The flame shall dry up his branches. By the breath of God's mouth shall he go away-</p><p> The theme of 'drying up' or 'withering' is significant. Bildad considers Job to have been 'dried up' by God's judgment (<a href='B:220 8:12'>Job 8:12</a>), and the word is used of how God withered or dried up Judah at the hands of their invaders (<a href='B:300 12:4'>Jer 12:4</a>; <a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; <a href='B:330 17:9-10'>Eze 17:9-10</a>; <a href='B:330 17:24'>Eze 17:24</a>; <a href='B:450 11:17'>Zec 11:17</a>; <a href='B:310 4:8'>Lam 4:8</a>; <a href='B:290 40:7-8'>Isa 40:7-8</a> - although the prophetic word of God requiring their restoration would endure, despite their drying up). The dry bones of Judah in captivity were withered or dried up (<a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>). So Job's 'drying up' was again, a sharing in the representative suffering of God's people. Job's personal response to his 'drying up' was to reflect that God dries up waters and also sends them forth as floods (<a href='B:220 12:15'>Job 12:15</a> s:w:); He can give and He can take, just as Job had initially realized (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>). Just as He dried up Job / Israel, so He could abundantly send forth waters; just as He did at the Red Sea. Restoration and salvation was just as easy for Him as destruction, to put it another way. The drying up of Job was also understood by him as referring to his death (<a href='B:220 14:11'>Job 14:11</a>), but God could raise him from the dead and have a desire to him again (<a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). Eliphaz wrongly argues that the Divine 'drying up' of a person means permanent extinction (<a href='B:220 15:30'>Job 15:30</a>), as does Bildad (<a href='B:220 18:16'>Job 18:16</a>); but Job always sees the 'drying up' as part of a Divine action which also has a counterpart, the pouring out again of waters, or resurrection of the dried up, withered bones. Likewise Judah in captivity thought that their drying up, their dry bones, were incapable of revival (<a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>); but the message is that they could indeed be revived, and their drying up was but a presage to their eternal revival:</p>


text:
<p> Let him not trust in emptiness, deceiving himself; for emptiness shall be his reward-</p><p> This idea that we become like that which we trust or worship is again true, so far as it goes. "Trust" is the usual word for "belief"; and "emptiness" is s:w. "vanities", a term often used about idols. There is here the definite suggestion Job was an idol worshipper. This was untrue. Now Eliphaz has been driven to absolutely wrong conclusions about Job, because he is so convinced that suffering means major sin has been committed. We see a progressive imputation of sin to Job by the friends, all dramatically reversed when God appears and imputes righteousness to Job.</p>


text:
<p> It shall be accomplished before his time. His branch shall not be green-</p><p> To die before man's time, to die young, was seen as a sign of Divine judgment. The death of the Lord Jesus at 33 reveals what a misunderstanding this was.</p>


text:
<p> He shall shake off his unripe grape as the vine, and shall cast off his flower as the olive tree-</p><p> The idea is that he would begin having fruit, but it would be shaken off before it came to maturity. The reference would be to the way Job had had children, but they had been slain in relative youth. The friends are later accused of 'wronging' Job by wicked "devices" (<a href='B:220 21:27'>Job 21:27</a>). 'Wronging' is the same word as "shake off" in <a href='B:220 15:33'>Job 15:33</a>. Eliphaz was so convinced that God would do Job 'wrong' that he developed to the point of actually devising to do wrong to Job, thus confirming the sense that the friends became the 'Satan' figure and actually did the evil to Job which he initially wanted done.</p>


text:
<p> For the company of the Godless shall be barren, and fire shall consume the tents of bribery-</p><p> It was Job's tents that had been consumed, and so clearly Eliphaz implies Job's children had practiced bribery. Perhaps they had- for they were indeed destroyed by "the fire of God". But he is wrong to imply some kind of guilt by association whereby Job had done the same and was about to be judged for it.</p>


text:
<p> They conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity. Their heart prepares deceit- Eliphaz thought there were only a few very sinful people in the world, of whom Job was one; but his words are quoted by the Spirit in <a href='B:290 59:4'>Isa 59:4</a> concerning the whole nation of Israel; and this in turn is quoted in <a href='B:520 3:15-17'>Rom 3:15-17</a> concerning the whole human race. This same path of progressive realization of our sinfulness must be trodden by each faithful individual, as well as on a communal level:&nbsp;The association between Job's supposed sins and those of Israel again confirms the idea that Job is the prototype suffering servant of Isaiah 53, carrying Israel's sins and the judgments for them, whilst personally innocent.</p>


text:
<p> Then Job answered-</p><p> Job here despairs at how Eliphaz has merely repeated his earlier speech; and his disillusion with the friends leads him in this speech to therefore turn to God more strongly and directly. And this is where disillusion with fellow believers and religious structures will lead the truly spiritual person- to the God whom we know has the answers to our unaddressed issues and questions, even if for now He is not revealing them.</p>


text:
<p> I have heard many such things. You are all miserable comforters!-</p><p> The friends admit they are only saying what was generally accepted wisdom at the time. Job had heard this many times over. But it gave him no comfort. This leads him to seek "comfort" from God; and the restoration prophets promise such "comfort" direct from God to the exiles who had not found it in traditional answers (<a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a>; <a href='B:290 66:13'>Isa 66:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Shall vain words have an end? Or what provokes you that you answer?-</p><p> Job is led by the annoying, empty answers of the friends to long for "an end". And that is what he is given when Elihu and then God appears at the end. His enquiry as to what was motivating them can be read as genuine pity for them, and a desire to help them forward spiritually- even from his own desperate position. This basic desire was rewarded at the end, when he is asked to pray for the friends and thereby save them from their own stupidity.</p>


text:
<p> I also could speak as you do. If your soul were in my soul’s place, I could join words together against you, and shake my head at you-</p><p> It was against the Lord Jesus that the Jews shook their head, as He died the death of the suffering servant (<a href='B:230 22:7'>Psa 22:7</a>). Despite his own awful situation, with all the self-centeredness which is elicited by extreme physical pain and suffering, Job thinks himself into their very soul, imagining how he would react in their situation. This basic concern for them was turned into reality when God makes Job their saviour in the end.</p>


text:
<p> but I would strengthen you with my mouth. The solace of my lips would relieve you-</p><p> We can't be brethren in Christ who have no effect on the rest of the body. We all have an influence on others. Words of our brethren really can strengthen and relieve. Our behaviour, however passive, has a powerful effect on our brethren. We are all members of one body. See on :6. On the contrary, a whole community can be cursed for the sake of one man’s sin, even if he later repents (<a href='B:120 24:3-4'>2Ki 24:3-4</a>). The fact we can be guilty of causing others to stumble means that we can limit God's gracious plan for them. "Strengthen" is exactly what God wanted to do for the exiles in their suffering (s:w. <a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a>; <a href='B:290 41:10'>Isa 41:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Though I speak, my grief is not subsided. Though I forbear, what am I eased?-</p><p> "Relieve" in :5 is the same word translated&nbsp; "subside" in :6. Job is therefore pointing out that the words of another can relieve grief in a way that ones’ own self-talk simply cannot (<a href='B:220 16:5-6'>Job 16:5-6</a>).</p>


text:
<p> But now, God, you have surely worn me out-</p><p> Or, "wearied", the same word used of the weariness of sinful Judah (<a href='B:300 9:5'>Jer 9:5</a>; <a href='B:300 12:5'>Jer 12:5</a>; <a href='B:330 24:12'>Eze 24:12</a>). Job was to be read as their representative, although not personally sinful.</p><p>You have made desolate all my company-</p><p> Job had sought comfort from the friends, his "company", but he feels that the lack of comfort from them is also somehow God's testing of him. Those who despair at the lack of comfort from their fellow believers would do well to adopt this perspective; that this too is from God, and as in Job's case in this speech, it is designed to drive us the closer to Him personally.</p>


text:
<p> You have shrivelled me up. This is a witness against me. My leanness rises up against me. It testifies to my face-</p><p> Job looked at his body, as the Lord looked upon His own body from His elevated position on the cross (<a href='B:230 22:17'>Psa 22:17</a>). The once fat and full fleshed Job (see on <a href='B:220 15:27'>Job 15:27</a>) was now thin and emaciated.</p>


text:
<p> He has torn me in His wrath, and persecuted me. He has gnashed on me with His teeth-</p><p> <a href='B:220 41:14'>Job 41:14</a> speaks of how terrible are the teeth of the creature God has made; but He alone can open the mouth of it and is fearless before its' teeth. The idea of the connection back to <a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a> is that God knows all about teeth. He has designed them, and even if Job thinks God is gnashing at Him like a beast, he must accept that God creates the beast and its teeth.</p><p>My adversary sharpens His eyes on me-</p><p> Job sees God as his adversary / enemy; he understood God to be the Satan. God's eyes often refer to the Angels. For the connection between the satan and an Angel, see on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p> They have gaped on me with their mouth. They have struck me on the cheek reproachfully-</p><p> The exact language of the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, the ultimate "suffering servant" (<a href='B:230 22:13'>Psa 22:13</a>; <a href='B:400 5:1'>Mic 5:1</a>). I have earlier suggested that the "friends" morph with the Satan figure, adopting his mentality, and proceed to actually bring some of the sufferings upon Job. Their aggression was to the point of pulling faces and hitting him. Yet they originally came to see him to comfort him, apparently sincerely. This is how far and how quickly a false theological understanding can transform human relationships for the worse. They also spat in his face (see on <a href='B:220 17:6'>Job 17:6</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>They gather themselves together against me-</p><p> A reference to the friends gathering themselves together to supposedly comfort Job.</p>


text:
<p> God delivers me to the ungodly, and casts me into the hands of the wicked-</p><p> There is reason to think that Eliphaz, the leader of the friends, may have been the specific individual referred to as 'satan' in the prologue. God singles him out for especial condemnation at the end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). After one of Eliphaz's speeches, Job responds with what appears to be a comment upon him, rather than God, here in :9-11. Eliphaz was a Temanite, from where Job's afflicters came. See on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>. But Job perceives that God is working through the friends; and his thoughts about them in :9,10 now therefore merge into his thoughts about God, so clearly did He see God working through them. This is a sure example as to how we can see the difficult people in our lives- as used by God. This removes some amount of personal anger with them, even though God is not forcing them to behave as they do, and they will be ultimately accountable for it as the friends were.</p>


text:
<p> I was at ease, and He broke me apart-</p><p> There are some very evident ways in which Job spiritually grew. In <a href='B:220 3:26'>Job 3:26</a> he originally says that his life previous to his afflictions had not been a life of ease; but as a result of his suffering, he realized that actually it had been "at ease".</p><p>Yes, He has taken me by the neck, and dashed me to pieces-</p><p> Job perceives God as a lion or beast of prey, taking him off to His lair by the neck and now ripping him apart.</p>&nbsp;<p>He has also set me up for His target-</p><p> Like the friends, Job is starting to repeat himself; for he has said this in <a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a>; <a href='B:220 7:20'>Job 7:20</a>. Eliphaz blames Job's troubles upon the “sons of Resheph” (<a href='B:220 5:7'>Job 5:7</a>); but Job’s response is that the source of the evil in his life is ultimately from God and not any such being. Eliphaz there speaks of how man’s trouble comes “as the sons of Resheph fly upwards”. Resheph was known as “the lord of the arrow” and the Ugaritic tablets associate him with archery (William J. Fulco, The Canaanite God Resep (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 1976)). We would therefore be justified in reading in an ellipsis here: man’s trouble comes “as the [arrows of] the sons of Resheph fly upwards”. Job’s response is that “The arrows of the Almighty are in me” (<a href='B:220 6:4'>Job 6:4</a>), and he lament that God is an archer using him as his target for practice (<a href='B:220 7:20'>Job 7:20</a>; <a href='B:220 16:12-13'>Job 16:12-13</a>). Job refuses to accept Eliphaz’s explanation that Job is a victim of Resheph’s arrows. For Job, if God is “the Almighty” then there is no space left for Resheph. Each blow he received, each arrow strike, was from God and not Resheph.</p>


text:
<p> His archers surround me. He splits my kidneys apart, and does not spare. He pours out my gall on the ground-</p><p> The prophets speak of archers surrounding Zion, and the language of gall and kidneys spilled on the ground is that of Jeremiah in Lamentations reflecting on the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. God was to threaten His sinful people that He would "not spare" (<a href='B:300 13:14'>Jer 13:14</a>; <a href='B:310 2:2'>Lam 2:2</a>). He finally did, in His grace. Job has earlier hinted that God would have a tender desire to the work of his hands at the end (<a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>), but in his weakness he has for now lost that perspective. And yet at this very nadir of faith and understanding, he becomes the representative of God's people who felt He had not spared them.</p>


text:
<p> He breaks me with blow after blow. He runs on me like a giant-</p><p> LXX "They...", as if Job saw God manifest in the abusers. This was the situation in the Babylonian overthrow of Judah. Just as Eliphaz had exaggerated Job's position to the point of accusing him of running upon God as a charging soldier (<a href='B:220 15:26'>Job 15:26</a>), so Job now makes the same mistake and does the same, exaggerating positions and extrapolating to make God like a giant charging at him. This was not at all the case. But once one party in a dialogue starts distorting things grossly, the partner in the dialogue tends to do the same in other contexts. And this is a lesson for us today.</p><p>It was so hard for Job to accept that God and not any orthodox ‘Satan’ figure was his adversary. It’s one thing to deduce from the Bible that both good and disaster comes from the Lord, as per <a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>. It’s of course quite another to accept it in real life, and Job is an inspiring example. <a href='B:220 16:9-14'>Job 16:9-14</a> is so powerful – the poetry speaks of Job’s awesome and even angry realization that God is in fact [in a sense] his enemy / adversary. “Here Job... identifies God as his enemy rather than his advocate. From his perspective he is led to wonder if the God in whom he trusted is not in reality his Satan” (J:E. Hartley, The Book of Job (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) p. 30). See on <a href='B:220 19:26'>Job 19:26</a>.</p>


text:
<p> I have sewed sackcloth on my skin-</p><p> The language of the Messianic <a href='B:230 69:11'>Psa 69:11</a> about the suffering of the Lord Jesus. Sinful Israel were called to do this in repentance (<a href='B:300 6:26'>Jer 6:26</a>); they refused to do so, and so they were covered with sackcloth at the time of their judgment (<a href='B:310 2:10'>Lam 2:10</a>). Job was sorry for himself, and didn't use sackcloth as a sign of repentance but of self pity. This was to be transformed at the end when he really repents unconditionally:&nbsp;And have thrust my horn in the dust-</p><p> His horn may refer to his reproductive organ, so desperate was he to express his grief.</p>


text:
<p> My face is red with weeping. Deep darkness is on my eyelids-</p><p> "On my eyelids is the shadow of death" (<a href='B:220 16:16'>Job 16:16</a> AV). Job felt he was facing death right before his eyes, and the shadow of that death was cast over his eyes. But God disagrees, challenging Job that he has not in fact seen "the doors of the shadow of death" (<a href='B:220 38:17'>Job 38:17</a> s:w:). Job had only seen death from a personal, human perspective. God sees death for what it really is, and it is far more terrible than man perceives. For from God's perspective it carries with it the tragedy of the eternity which a man has missed, if he has rejected God. And God is saying that Job hasn't see death from that perspective.</p>


text:
<p> Although there is no violence in my hands, and my prayer is pure-</p><p> Job oscillates between accepting he has sinned, and protesting his innocence. The final appearance of God leads him to the unqualified conclusion that he is indeed a sinner, and this was God's intended outcome for the exiles in captivity. Job's oscillation however is understandable once we perceive that he is being set up as representative of God's sinful people, represented by the friends. He is suffering the judgment for sins when he himself is innocent, pointing forward to the Lord's representative sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p> Earth, don’t cover my blood-</p><p> Here he seems to associate himself with unfairly persecuted Abel, whose blood cried out for justice (<a href='B:10 4:10'>Gen 4:10</a>). And yet he earlier compares his seeking of death and not finding it, as a marked man, with the judgment of Cain. He feels he is being treated as Cain when he is in fact as Abel. This is exactly what happened to the Lord in hearing our sins. See on <a href='B:220 11:15'>Job 11:15</a>.</p><p>Let my cry have no place to rest-</p><p> Job makes the amazing comment: “Although He slays me, yet will I trust in Him” (<a href='B:220 13:15'>Job 13:15</a>). The language of ‘slaying’ takes us back to the Mosaic commands about how a ‘slayer’ of a man might be killed by the ‘avenger of blood’. Job saw God as slaying him; yet he also sees God as the ‘witness’ in the case (<a href='B:220 16:19'>Job 16:19</a>), and the avenger of Job’s blood (<a href='B:220 19:25'>Job 19:25</a>). Job even asks God to not let the earth cover his blood, so that God as the avenger of Job’s blood may avenge Job’s death, continuing the allusions to the avenger of blood scenario. Job feels he is innocent blood. Job does not see ‘Satan’ as his slayer, and God as the avenger of his blood. Instead Job – in a quite breathtaking set of associations – sees God in all these things: the slayer, the legal witness to the slayer, the avenger of blood, and the One who will enforce the doing of justice in this case, the One who will not let the earth cover Job’s blood. If Job really believed in a superhuman Satan, in Satan as the bad guy and God as the avenger of the injustice, he surely would’ve expressed himself differently. As Job imagines God as it were taking vengeance on Himself, so he came to portray for all time the way that evil and good are indeed both ultimately from God.</p>


text:
<p> Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven. He who vouches for me is on high-</p><p> See on :18. Job in his depths came to know God as his “witness in heaven”; in his former life, “when the eye saw me, it gave witness [s:w:] to me” (<a href='B:220 29:11'>Job 29:11</a>). But Job was brought to learn that the only ultimate witness in life is God, and it is His testimony and not man’s which is meaningful.</p>


text:
<p> My friends scoff at me. My eyes pour out tears to God-</p><p> The emphasis is upon "God"; he had poured out his tears to the friends and they had scoffed at him. So his experience of disillusion with his brethren didn't turn him away from God, as so often happens; instead it drove him to throw himself more intimately upon his God.</p>


text:
<p> that He would maintain the right of a man with God, of a son of man with his neighbour!-</p><p> Job sees his enemy as his "neighbour", surely referring to the friends. Again we have the hint that they had effectively morphed into the satan figure bringing some of the actual distresses upon him. Job felt like having a court case with them before God. But God's final appearance is to hold a court case against them all, Job included. Clearly the lesson is that instead of judging our brother and wanting justice established with him, we should concern ourselves with God's judgment of us, and our injustice before Him.</p><p>Maintaining the right is legal language. Job appeals for ‘witnesses’ (<a href='B:220 9:33-35'>Job 9:33-35</a>; <a href='B:220 16:18-22'>Job 16:18-22</a>; <a href='B:220 19:20-27'>Job 19:20-27</a>), an advocate in Heaven (<a href='B:220 9:33'>Job 9:33</a>), denies his guilt and demands a legal list of his sins (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>), he wishes for God to come to trial (<a href='B:220 9:3'>Job 9:3</a>), and thus Job is described as a man who has taken out a ‘case’ with God (<a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>; <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>). Job 29-31 is effectively Job’s declaration of legal innocence and an appeal to God to hear his case more sympathetically (<a href='B:220 31:35'>Job 31:35</a>). And of course God pronounces a final legal verdict at the very end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>), in response to Job’s earlier plea: “Sleeplessly I wait for His reply” (<a href='B:220 16:22'>Job 16:22</a>). It’s as if the whole experience of Job was [at least partly] in order to test out the Canaanite theories of ‘Satan’, suffering and evil in the court of Heaven; and also the various theories which arose to explain Judah's captivity in Babylon. The friends represent the traditional views of evil, and often make reference to the myths of their day about ‘Satan’ figures. They speak as if they are the final court – Eliphaz speaks of how the judges and elders of their day, the “holy ones”, had concluded Job was guilty, and that they, the friends, were right: “To which of the holy ones will you appeal [legal language]?... we have [legally] examined this, and it [Job’s guilt] is true” (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>; <a href='B:220 5:27'>Job 5:27</a>). This is of great comfort to those who feel misjudged by man – above them in Heaven the ultimate Heavenly court is considering our case, and that is all that matters.</p><p>AV "O that one might plead for a man with God, as a man pleadeth for his neighbour!". "Plead" is the same word translated "umpire" in <a href='B:220 9:33'>Job 9:33</a>. The word suggests 'one who is right', a reasoner, an advocate, one who pleads, a reprover (<a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a> s:w:). Job's request is not simply for a mediator; he would have used a different word if so. He seems to want to put God in the dock, but knows this is not appropriate; he wants someone else to do this who can legitimately do it. And he is rebuked for this in <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p> For when a few years have come, I shall go the way of no return- This may be a purposeful challenge to the statements of Eliphaz in the previous chapter, that Job is about to be smitten with death at any moment. Job instead gives himself a few years. We note that Job directly engages with the words of the friends, whereas they attack him in terms of vague generalities.</p>


text:
<p> My spirit is consumed. My days are extinct, and the grave is ready for me-</p><p> LXX "I seek for burial, and obtain it not". To have no burial and to have their corpse thrown on the open field was the very punishment several times threatened to Judah's leadership. Again Job oscillates; in <a href='B:220 16:22'>Job 16:22</a> he has just given himself a few years, but now within the same speech he considers himself already as without spirit and at death's door. This is typical of a depressed sufferer, and confirms that there was a historical Job who suffered these things.</p>


text:
<p> Surely there are mockers with me. My eye dwells on their provocation-</p><p>&nbsp; Even in deep illness, a man can still dwell on the unkind words of others. This is one lesson of Job- the power of words. LXX "strangers have stolen my goods", also relevant to the captivity at the hands of Babylon. This further confirms the idea that the satan figure of the prologue has morphed into the friends, and it was they personally who brought some of the sufferings upon him.</p>


text:
<p> Now give a pledge, be collateral for me with Yourself. Who is there who will strike hands with me?-</p><p> The person in view is clearly God, as :4 continues to address Him. To strike hands is parallel with giving a pledge as in <a href='B:240 6:1'>Pro 6:1</a>. Job is here inviting God to enter court with him, and to pay a pledge, a kind of caution money required before the court sits, in case He is indeed found guilty. And that bond money is to be God Himself. This is indeed arrogant of Job. He is asking God to stake His very own Divine self, all He stands for, and risk losing it if Job is right. When God finally appears in judgment, Job is quite rightly humbled. But for all this arrogance of a moment, it is the friends whom God condemns and justifies Job. We cannot justify arrogance or sins of depression or hot blood, they remain as sins. But we notice, we are forced to notice, that God passes over them in Job's case and sees the man's core devotion to Him. It is the arrogance and lies of the friends, their hatred of their brother, which is to Him so hard to forgive unless, as it were, He has the 'help' of Job in forgiving them himself and praying to Him for their restoration. We learn so very much from all this.</p>


text:
<p> For You have hidden their heart from understanding, therefore You shall not exalt them-</p><p> Job considers the friends have been stopped from understanding the real facts and truths about Job's case, because God doesn't want to exalt them. God can indeed close eyes of understanding, but He does so in response to the attitudes of the people concerned; just as He hardened Pharaoh's already hardened heart. We see that God is capable of working directly upon the mind of man, to give or take understanding.</p>


text:
<p> He who denounces his friends for a prey, even the eyes of his children shall fail-</p><p> Perhaps the idea is that in the envisioned court case of :3, Job is not going to denounce the friends before God. Job may here be quoting a proverb known at the time. Job is angry with the friends in his speeches, but has a basic desire to save them and not to see them dragged by him into court for condemnation. This basic desire to save people needs to be in us too, and if it is, as with Job at the end (<a href='B:220 42:7-8'>Job 42:7-8</a>), then God will use us to save people. This is what is so essential in all evangelism; technique and evangelism materials may be as perfect as man can make them, but without this basic desire to save others, it is all useless.</p>


text:
<p> But He has made me a byword of the people. They spit in my face-</p><p> The friends have earlier been accused of striking Job (see on <a href='B:220 16:10'>Job 16:10</a>), and the "they" here refers likewise to the friends (:5). They were so furious with him that they spat in his face, thereby again connecting him with the future sufferings of the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant after the pattern of Job. Their aggression was to the point of spitting at and hitting him. Yet they originally came to see him to comfort him, apparently sincerely. This is how far and how quickly a false theological understanding can transform human relationships for the worse.</p>


text:
<p> My eye also is dim by reason of sorrow. All my members are as a shadow-</p><p> Failing eyesight appears to also have been experienced by the Lord on the cross. "Shadow" is literally a shade, and is very often used in the sense of giving shade and comfort to others. Through his sufferings, Job was to become a shade for salvation to the friends who were abusing him, just as the Lord achieved for His enemies through His crucifixion.</p>


text:
<p> Upright men shall be astonished at this. The innocent shall stir up himself against the godless-</p><p> This matches the astonishment of the Jews at the ghastly physical appearance of Christ on the cross (<a href='B:290 52:14'>Isa 52:14</a>). Job begins to have the sense that his sufferings are somehow for the sake of others; and this is revealed as the key to his suffering, as an innocent man suffering as if he has committed sins he hasn't, so that he might thereby become a representative saviour. Just as the Lord Jesus did, to a far greater extent. So now he muses that his sufferings will stir up other innocent people to action. He is starting to come towards the climax of the book, when he is asked to pray for and intercede to save the friends (<a href='B:220 42:7-8'>Job 42:7-8</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Yet shall the righteous hold on to his way. He who has clean hands shall grow stronger and stronger-</p><p> Job has been lamenting the decline of his physical health, to the point he feels he is now facing death (:11). But he has held on to his way spiritually and insists he has clean hands. So he knows that at some future point, he must "grow stronger and stronger". This implies a resurrection. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p> But as for you all, come on now again; I shall not find a wise man among you-</p><p> Paul alludes to these word sin lamenting that there was not found a wise man amongst the church at Corinth, who could correctly judge his brother (<a href='B:530 6:5'>1Co 6:5</a>). This is an identical context- the friends couldn't judge their brother Job rightly because they were themselves morally compromised and lacked wisdom. We can infer that Paul understood Job to mean that there was not a wise man amongst the friends to judge him rightly. For that is how Paul uses this quotation.</p>


text:
<p> My days are past, my plans are broken off, as are the thoughts of my heart-</p><p> The word&nbsp; for "plans" is not the Hebrew word which would be used if "plans" were simply meant. In nearly all of the other 28 occurrences of the word in the Old Testament, the word means "wickedness" or "lewdness". Job again moves closer towards the final confession of sin he will make, and away from his earlier self righteousness. He seems to be saying that death will finally end his sin, because his sin is parallel with his thoughts, and they will perish at death. Or it could be that he was so carrying the guilt of others, as their sin bearer, that he feels a wicked sinner when in fact he wasn't; just as the Lord was to carry the sin of His people in Himself on the cross. The difference of course was that although Job is presented as "perfect" before God in <a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>, he was not Jesus, and he had sinned, and he minimized that sin- until the final appearance of God elicits this realization from him.</p>


text:
<p> They change the night into day, saying ‘The light is near’ in the presence of darkness-</p><p> The argument was that because Job was in darkness, then light had to come soon; whereas Job felt he was about to die, before the dawn broke (:11,13). The friends never deploy this argument; Job is transferring his own thoughts onto the friends, and then knocking down the argument. And they then do just the same to him (see on <a href='B:220 18:3'>Job 18:3</a>). This again is an example to us of what happens when dialogue goes wrong. The whole dialogues are a masterful example to us in this respect. The restoration prophets again seize upon Job's words here and reframe them; the darkness of the exile was indeed to soon end in the day of Zion's glad morning of restoration. And so it happened with Job.</p>


text:
<p> If I look for Sheol as my house, if I have spread my couch in the darkness-</p><p> Job was lying on a couch (<a href='B:220 7:13'>Job 7:13</a>), and felt that he was already lying in the darkness of the grave. The deserted house he was lying in (see on <a href='B:220 15:28'>Job 15:28</a>) was effectively sheol, the grave, for him.</p>


text:
<p> if I have said to corruption, ‘You are my father’; to the worm, ‘My mother’, and ‘my sister’-</p><p> Job felt he was in a living death and therefore the idea that hope was just around the corner (12,15) was meaningless, because death had already come effectively, and he felt as if already in sheol.</p>


text:
<p> where then is my hope? As for my hope, who shall see it?-</p><p> Originally, Job believed that his "hope" was predicated upon his upright ways (<a href='B:220 4:6'>Job 4:6</a>). But Job through his sufferings comes to feel he now has no "hope" (<a href='B:220 7:6'>Job 7:6</a>; <a href='B:220 14:19'>Job 14:19</a>; <a href='B:220 17:15'>Job 17:15</a>; <a href='B:220 19:10'>Job 19:10</a>). The friends suggest that Job had only the "hope" of the hypocrite, and this "hope" would perish (<a href='B:220 4:6'>Job 4:6</a>; <a href='B:220 8:13'>Job 8:13</a>; <a href='B:220 27:8'>Job 27:8</a>). Job had integrity, and on that basis he thought he had "hope". He suffered, and he lost that "hope", because he assumed that his sufferings meant that he was not in fact righteous. And yet he often reflects that he is righteous and is suffering unjustly. And so he is led to the realization that the "hope" of the righteous is by God's grace and not because of the "integrity of [Job's] ways". Judah in captivity likewise lost their "hope" (<a href='B:330 19:5'>Eze 19:5</a>; <a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>). But the message of the restoration prophets was that "there is hope in your end" (<a href='B:300 31:17'>Jer 31:17</a>); they were prisoners or exiles in "hope" (<a href='B:450 9:12'>Zec 9:12</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Shall it go down with me to the gates of Sheol, or descend together into the dust?- Job saw sheol as death, the grave, the time of turning back to dust. And he felt he could take no hope with him there. Here again we have Job at the low point of his oscillation between believing in a resurrection, as he does in :9 and often, and yet denying it. Or at best, placing it under serious question. But for all his fluctuating faith and spirituality, he is the one justified in the end; and the self confident friends are condemned. We learn at least that perfectly consistent maintenance of faith and hope is not necessary for God to impute righteousness and save us by grace. Job is rightly condemned at the end and does repent, but the up points of his faith cycle are noted by God.</p>


text:
<p> Then Bildad the Shuhite answered-</p><p> Bildad doesn't even engage with Job's words after briefly doing so in :4, but rather just vents his anger in this speech, threatening Job with all manner of condemnation; and the longer he rants on, the more convinced he becomes that Job is "wicked" and doesn't know God (:5,21). This is the problem when we don't engage with the words and arguments of another, or pay mere lip service to doing so; we can fall headlong into a feeding frenzy of angry accusation, resulting in doing what God condemns- condemning our brother, imputing sin rather than righteousness to a person we have created in our own minds, who merely bears the name of the one who began merely with a theological difference with us.</p>


text:
<p> How long will you hunt for words? Consider, and afterwards we will speak-</p><p> This again is imputing to Job an image which the friends like to assume he has, rather than engaging with what he has actually said. Job appears to be blurting out his feelings, not hunting for words to say.</p>


text:
<p> Why are we counted as animals, which have become unclean in your sight?-</p><p> Again as noted on :2, this is a case of attacking a straw man image of an opponent. For Job has not treated them as animals. They have themselves proclaimed all men as "unclean" by birth (<a href='B:220 15:14'>Job 15:14</a>), and yet they decide Job has called them unclean, and they object to it. But as Job transfers his feelings back onto the friends in <a href='B:220 17:12'>Job 17:12</a>, so they are doing the same to him. They may posit that all men are unclean, including themselves; but if Job is even supposed to have said this, then he is to be condemned. This again is an example to us of what happens when dialogue goes wrong. The dialogues begin and end with Job and the friends in silence. The implication is that all that was said had been not said.</p>


text:
<p> You who tear yourself in your anger, shall the earth be forsaken for you? Or shall the rock be removed out of its place?-</p><p> This is the only point in this speech where Bildad makes any attempt to engage with the actual words of Job; see on :1. And he quickly moves on to generalize about Job as a wicked person for the rest of his speech. In any case, he is only superficially engaging with Job's words. Job has said that he felt as if God were tearing him apart like a wild beast (<a href='B:220 16:9'>Job 16:9</a>); but Bildad twists this, or simply misremembers it, to Job saying that he was tearing himself apart. Job has argued that the process of erosion wears down the greatest mountains and removes them (<a href='B:220 14:18-19'>Job 14:18-19</a>), and so likewise the strongest man is eventually worn down to dust. But Bildad denies this; perhaps he was ignorant of the process of erosion, and considered it bunk science. For him, present realities are all that count. Mountains aren't removed, in his experience. And yet they are, by faith (<a href='B:470 17:20'>Mat 17:20</a>); and the great mountain which God would surely remove was Babylon, and He would establish the mountain of His restored people and Kingdom in Zion (<a href='B:450 4:7'>Zec 4:7</a>; <a href='B:340 2:45'>Dan 2:45</a>). The exiles disbelieved this, and thus were like Bildad, seeing only what was immediately before their own eyes. Bildad considered that the eretz ("land") could never be "forsaken"; but that is just what happened. The very phrase is used of the land being forsaken, because God's people had forsaken Him (<a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>). The hope of the restoration prophets was that the land would no longer be forsaken (<a href='B:290 62:4'>Isa 62:4</a>). But just as Bildad considered such a thing impossible, so God's people had done.</p>


text:
<p> Yes, the light of the wicked shall be put out, the spark of his fire shall not shine-</p><p> Much of Bildad's condemnation of Job in :5-21 appears to be taken from the "wisdom of the Beni Kedem", the children of the east (<a href='B:110 4:30'>1Ki 4:30</a>). Bildad has decided Job is sinful and very wicked, because of the extent of his sufferings. And he brings in now descriptions of the wicked man taken from other sources. Through these allusions and quotations, he is lead to yet further condemn and slander Job.</p>


text:
<p> The light shall be dark in his tent. His lamp above him shall be put out-</p><p> Light becoming dark is exactly the phrase used about the judgment coming upon Judah (<a href='B:290 5:10'>Isa 5:10</a>; <a href='B:290 13:10'>Isa 13:10</a>; <a href='B:300 13:16'>Jer 13:16</a>). Indeed this had happened to Job, but insofar as he was representing God's people who were to suffer this.</p>


text:
<p> The steps of his strength shall be shortened. His own counsel shall cast him down-</p><p> An oblique reference to the way Job was apparently dying before his time, with a shortened life. Here we have another connection between Job and Hezekiah, who had the same experience, but like Job was restored out of it. Yet Hezekiah didn't make use of that restoration, just as the exiles didn't.</p>


text:
<p> For he is cast into a net by his own feet, and he wanders into its mesh-</p><p> I noted on :5 that Bildad has concluded that Job is wicked because of the extent of his sufferings; and he begins quoting or alluding to standard condemnations of the wicked from the wisdom of the east. And this leads him to ever more falsely accuse Job. For it was simply not so that Job was falling into his own trap. For he had lived justly and uprightly before his trials (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p> A snare will take him by the heel. A trap will catch him-</p><p> I noted on :8 that this idea that Job had fallen into his own snare was totally untrue. But it was how he was judged and considered by men. In this respect, he was completely identified with the sins of Israel, who indeed fell into their own snare (<a href='B:290 8:14'>Isa 8:14</a>; <a href='B:290 24:17-18'>Isa 24:17-18</a>; <a href='B:350 5:1'>Hos 5:1</a>). He was a representative figure.</p>


text:
<p> A noose is hidden for him in the ground, a trap for him in the way-</p><p> Jeremiah alludes to this in complaining that the Jews had hid snares for him (<a href='B:300 18:22'>Jer 18:22</a>). He often alludes to Job and saw himself as&nbsp; Job- persecuted by his own people, whom he vainly tried to reform.</p>


text:
<p> Terrors shall make him afraid on every side, and shall chase him at his heels-</p><p> This looks ahead to Jerusalem, represented by Job, surrounded on every side by her enemies. The "terrors" are imagined to be demon-like figures under the control of "the king of terrors" (s:w:, :14). As noted on :14, this wrong idea is being deconstructed.</p>


text:
<p> His strength shall be famished. Calamity shall be ready at his side-</p><p> The destruction of Jerusalem by famine may be in view, prefigured by Job being so hungry that he had to beg for bread (see on <a href='B:220 15:23'>Job 15:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p> The members of his body shall be devoured. The firstborn of death shall devour his members-</p><p> The phrase recalls the destroying Angel who destroyed the Egyptians and would have also destroyed the Israelite firstborn were it not for the blood of the Passover lamb. The satan figure was associated with an obedient Divine angel who brought the trials upon Job (see on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>). "Devour" is the same Hebrew word used of how Job's wealth was "consumed" by Divine fire (<a href='B:220 1:16'>Job 1:16</a>). Again, Job is representative of an apostate Israel who likewise had their members (s:w. "branches") devoured by the fire of Divine judgment (s:w. <a href='B:330 19:14'>Eze 19:14</a>; <a href='B:350 11:6'>Hos 11:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p> He shall be rooted out of his tent where he trusts. He shall be brought to the king of terrors-</p><p> Significantly, it is the friends who make allusion to the ‘Satan’ figures and gods as if they are real, whereas Job in his responses always denies their reality and sees God as the direct source of His sufferings. Bildad speaks of how Job’s troubles are to be associated with “the king of terrors”; Eliphaz blames them upon the “sons of Resheph” (<a href='B:220 5:7'>Job 5:7</a>); but Job’s response is that the source of the evil in his life is ultimately from God and not any such being. See on <a href='B:220 5:7'>Job 5:7</a>. The Bible personifies death as a person; that is the king of terrors (<a href='B:230 49:14'>Psa 49:14</a>; <a href='B:290 28:15'>Isa 28:15</a>), rather than the superhuman being of&nbsp; the friends' imagination.</p>


text:
<p> There shall dwell in his tent that which is none of his. Sulphur shall be scattered on his habitation-</p><p> Living in early times, the friends were likely aware of the fate of Sodom. Job's children and wealth had been destroyed by Divine fire, just as Sodom was, and perhaps sulphur was also used. God's sinful people are likewise identified with Sodom (<a href='B:290 1:10'>Isa 1:10</a>; <a href='B:330 16:46'>Eze 16:46</a>; <a href='B:370 4:11'>Amo 4:11</a>), the destruction of Jerusalem was seen as that of Sodom (<a href='B:310 4:6'>Lam 4:6</a>), just as the friends here identify Job with Sodom.</p>


text:
<p> His roots shall be dried up beneath. Above shall his branch be cut off-</p><p> The theme of 'drying up' or 'withering' is significant. Bildad considers Job to have been 'dried up' by God's judgment (<a href='B:220 8:12'>Job 8:12</a>), and the word is used of how God withered or dried up Judah at the hands of their invaders (<a href='B:300 12:4'>Jer 12:4</a>; <a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; <a href='B:330 17:9-10'>Eze 17:9-10</a>; <a href='B:330 17:24'>Eze 17:24</a>; <a href='B:450 11:17'>Zec 11:17</a>; <a href='B:310 4:8'>Lam 4:8</a>; <a href='B:290 40:7-8'>Isa 40:7-8</a> - although the prophetic word of God requiring their restoration would endure, despite their drying up). The dry bones of Judah in captivity were withered or dried up (<a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>). So Job's 'drying up' was again, a sharing in the representative suffering of God's people. Job's personal response to his 'drying up' was to reflect that God dries up waters and also sends them forth as floods (<a href='B:220 12:15'>Job 12:15</a> s:w:); He can give and He can take, just as Job had initially realized (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>). Just as He dried up Job / Israel, so He could abundantly send forth waters; just as He did at the Red Sea. Restoration and salvation was just as easy for Him as destruction, to put it another way. The drying up of Job was also understood by him as referring to his death (<a href='B:220 14:11'>Job 14:11</a>), but God could raise him from the dead and have a desire to him again (<a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). Eliphaz wrongly argues that the Divine 'drying up' of a person means permanent extinction (<a href='B:220 15:30'>Job 15:30</a>), as does Bildad (<a href='B:220 18:16'>Job 18:16</a>); but Job always sees the 'drying up' as part of a Divine action which also has a counterpart, the pouring out again of waters, or resurrection of the dried up, withered bones. Likewise Judah in captivity thought that their drying up, their dry bones, were incapable of revival (<a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>); but the message is that they could indeed be revived, and their drying up was but a presage to their eternal revival:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>This connects with the thought of Job's words in <a href='B:220 14:8'>Job 14:8</a>: "Though its root grows old in the earth, and its stock dies in the ground". "Earth" is eretz, the land (of Israel). If merely "soil" was intended, a different word would have been used. Again, we see the drama of Job has been tweaked, under Divine inspiration, to become the narrative for the exiles. The root had indeed largely died in the land at the time of the Babylonian invasion, but it still had some life and would "bud" again (<a href='B:220 14:9'>Job 14:9</a>). Job was the man with great roots who had been cut down but hadn't completely died (<a href='B:220 8:17'>Job 8:17</a>); his roots had been dried up (<a href='B:220 18:16'>Job 18:16</a>; <a href='B:220 29:19'>Job 29:19</a>). He represented Judah, whose roots were throughout the land as a tree transplanted by God (s:w. <a href='B:230 80:9'>Psa 80:9</a>). Those roots were withered by the invasions (<a href='B:290 5:24'>Isa 5:24</a>), but out of those dry roots would grow up a "tender plant / branch" (<a href='B:290 11:1'>Isa 11:1</a>; <a href='B:290 11:10'>Isa 11:10</a>; <a href='B:290 53:2'>Isa 53:2</a>), using the same word for "tender" as in <a href='B:220 14:7'>Job 14:7</a>. This Messianic suffering servant was to be based upon Job, and representative of all God's restored people. They were to again spread their roots in the land of promise in a restored Kingdom (<a href='B:290 37:31'>Isa 37:31</a>; <a href='B:300 17:8'>Jer 17:8</a>), after the pattern of Job's restoration.</p>


text:
<p> His memory shall perish from the earth. He shall have no name in the street-</p><p> This was the most awful fate for an oriental sheikh or leader. <a href='B:290 26:14'>Isa 26:14</a> uses this language about Babylon, who initially refused to let the Jews return.</p>


text:
<p> He shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world-</p><p> The idea of being driven away into darkness is that of condemnation, as is used of the driving of God's condemned people into exile (<a href='B:290 8:22'>Isa 8:22</a>; <a href='B:300 23:12'>Jer 23:12</a>). Again, Job suffered the condemnation of the wicked without being wicked as charged. And just as the Lord's death made Him be perceived as an accursed criminal, although He was innocent, so the friends' judgments of Job made him appear "wicked" when he wasn't.</p>


text:
<p> He shall have neither son nor grandson among his people, nor any remaining where he lived-</p><p> Clearly an oblique reference to the fate of Job's children. Perhaps the desolation and emptying of homes and areas in Israel and Judah is in view, after the people were carried into exile.</p>


text:
<p> Those who come after shall be astonished at his day, as those who went before were frightened-</p><p> "Astonished" is s:w. "desolation" in the descriptions of the fate of the land when its people would go into exile (<a href='B:30 26:34-35'>Lev 26:34-35</a>; <a href='B:310 1:4'>Lam 1:4</a>). The promise of restoration was that the new covenant would change this and restore the desolate (<a href='B:300 33:10'>Jer 33:10</a>). Bildad failed to see this, assuming that all judgment was to be eternal. The idea of ultimate restoration was out of his mind, as it was with the faithless exiles.</p>


text:
<p> Surely such are the dwellings of the unrighteous. This is the place of him who doesn’t know God- Clearly Job did "know God". We see here for all time the danger of dashing headlong along a path of reasoning about a person which leads us to a totally wrong and slanderous position about them. <a href='B:220 36:26'>Job 36:26</a> uses the same phrase in what appears to be Elihu's take on this- which is that in fact God is too great to be known by any man. His final appearance makes it clear that to know God is to repent and accept His grace.</p>


text:
<p> Then Job answered-</p><p> This speech sees Job bitterly lament his treatment by God and the friends. Indeed everything was so unfair. But out of all this deep self pity, he comes to the classic expression of his faith in resurrection and judgment in :25-27. Taking any of his statements alone would lead to the impression that he was almost narcissistic in his self-pity, but it is out of this down cycle that is born the expression of faith and yet deeper understanding of :25-27.</p>


text:
<p> How long will you torment me, and crush me with words?-</p><p> If nothing else we see here the power of words. The friends had come to comfort, but ended up crushing him. Eliphaz had earlier concluded that Job was "crushed" (s:w:) because of his sins (<a href='B:220 5:4'>Job 5:4</a>) and so he thought he could crush Job with words as well. Even if Job had indeed been condemned, his friends ought still to have sought to save him. Through this experience he came to bear the "torment" which the exiles would during the Babylonian invasion and captivity (s:w. <a href='B:290 51:23'>Isa 51:23</a>; <a href='B:310 1:4'>Lam 1:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p> You have reproached me ten times. You aren’t ashamed that you attack me-</p><p> There have not yet been ten speeches by the friends. So "ten times" is being used to mean 'totally' or 'many times', as in <a href='B:10 31:41'>Gen 31:41</a>; <a href='B:40 14:22'>Num 14:22</a>; <a href='B:160 4:12'>Neh 4:12</a>; <a href='B:340 1:20'>Dan 1:20</a>. We must understand that Semitic languages don't use numbers always in the strictly literal sense which European languages tend to. The friends were so sure that Job was condemned that they lost all sense of shame and personal guilt in how they treated him.</p>


text:
<p> If it is true that I have erred, my error remains with myself-</p><p> The aggression of the friends was because they thought they had the right to join in the apparent Divine condemnation of him; rather than leaving the matter between God and Job. This mentality is seen all around us today. We note however that Job is still qualifying his sinfulness ["if it is true..."]; and his final repentance reflects a total shedding of this kind of careful self qualification.</p>


text:
<p> If indeed you will magnify yourselves against me-</p><p> The Messianic Psalms record David and the Lord Jesus feeling that their enemies had magnified themselves against them (<a href='B:230 35:26'>Psa 35:26</a>; <a href='B:230 38:16'>Psa 38:16</a>; <a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:230 55:12'>Psa 55:12</a>). <a href='B:230 41:9'>Psa 41:9</a> applies the term to Judas, who was typified by the friends as the Lord Jesus was by Job.</p><p>And plead against me my reproach-</p><p> Pleading is legal language. Job had done nothing wrong to the friends, but he feels they had come into court to quote his "reproach" as evidence he had sinned, and therefore were demanding his judgment. When they should have left any possible sin as a matter between Job and God (:4).</p>


text:
<p> know now that God has subverted me, and has surrounded me with His net-</p><p> "Subverted" translates a Hebrew word which clearly means to be perverse or wicked with another person. Elihu sternly rebukes Job for this statement, saying that God will not "pervert judgment" (<a href='B:220 34:12'>Job 34:12</a>). Again we marvel at the grace of how God later says that Job has spoken what was right about Him (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). Whilst that statement may refer simply to Job's expression of total repentance, we would still expect it to be qualified by some clause to the effect that "although earlier Job accused me of many awful things". There is no such clause in <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>. The absence of it, bearing in mind Job's wrong statements about God which Elihu has reminded us of, is surely noticeable and intended to be noticed. We are left marvelling at the extent of grace and imputed righteousness, through faith by grace.</p>


text:
<p> Behold, I cry out because of injustice, but I am not heard. I cry for help, but there is no justice-</p><p> Job now turns to lament how he feels God has treated him, having complained of how the friends have unjustly treated him. Job feels he has 'cried out' to God for justice and not been heard (<a href='B:220 19:7'>Job 19:7</a>; <a href='B:220 30:20'>Job 30:20</a>); and that there is nothing wrong with crying out to God in distress, it is a perfectly natural reaction (<a href='B:220 24:12'>Job 24:12</a>). One comment upon this is that the young ravens cry out to God for food and yet are not always heard (<a href='B:220 38:41'>Job 38:41</a> s:w:). But God in the wider picture sustains all of creation by grace. Job did well to cry out to God even if there was no answer, because the hypocrites do not 'cry out' to God when they are facing judgment (<a href='B:220 36:13'>Job 36:13</a> s:w:). Job feels hurt that God has not responded to his 'crying out' because he says that when the needy cried out to him, he had heard (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a> s:w:). But here we see his works based approach; he thought that his response to those who cried out to him meant that therefore God must respond to his crying out. And God is not so primitive. His apparent silence is because His response is not predicated upon human works and charity. It is by grace alone, as is taught in His final appearance to Job. The exiles likewise were to finally see the response to their crying out to God in the restoration (<a href='B:290 58:9'>Isa 58:9</a>), just as their representative Jonah cried out to God from the belly of sheol amidst the sea of nations, and was heard (s:w. <a href='B:390 2:2'>Jon 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p> He has walled up my way so that I can’t pass, and has set darkness in my paths-</p><p> Job is feeling confined, imprisoned, blocked in. But this was what happened to Judah in their judgment (<a href='B:350 2:6'>Hos 2:6</a>); Job although righteous was the representative of Judah. See on <a href='B:220 10:11-12'>Job 10:11-12</a>.</p><p><a href='B:40 22:22'>Num 22:22</a> describes how an Angel of God stood in a narrow, walled path before Balaam, so that his donkey fell down beneath him. That Angel is described as a "satan", an adversary, to Balaam. Job comments how the sufferings which the 'Satan' brought upon him were God 'walling up my way that I cannot pass' (<a href='B:220 19:8'>Job 19:8</a>). The connection is clear- and surely indicates that Job's satan was a satan-Angel, acting as an adversary to Job just as such an Angel did to Balaam. See on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>. Job and Balaam have certain similarities- both were prophets (in Job's case see <a href='B:220 4:4'>Job 4:4</a>; <a href='B:220 23:12'>Job 23:12</a>; <a href='B:220 29:4'>Job 29:4</a> cp. 15:8; <a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a>; <a href='B:660 5:10-11'>Jas 5:10-11</a>); both had genuine difficulty in understanding God's ways, but they to varying degrees consciously rebelled against what they did understand; both thus became angry with God (in the Angel), and were reproved by God through being brought to consider the Angel-controlled natural creation.</p>


text:
<p> He has stripped me of my glory, and taken the crown from my head-</p><p> "Stripped me" is s:w. "fell upon" in describing how the troops of Job's enemies fell upon his children and wealth (<a href='B:220 1:17'>Job 1:17</a>). It was God who did this, Job perceives; they were "His troops" (:12). The same word is used of the stripping of God's people of their glory (<a href='B:330 16:39'>Eze 16:39</a>; <a href='B:330 23:26'>Eze 23:26</a>; <a href='B:400 3:3'>Mic 3:3</a>), which only happened because they themselves did not strip themselves of their clothing in repentance (s:w. <a href='B:290 32:11'>Isa 32:11</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:330 26:16'>Eze 26:16</a>). The stripping of Job, which also recalls the stripping of the priest Aaron of his clothes and "crown" [mitre] when his priesthood ended (<a href='B:40 20:26'>Num 20:26</a>; <a href='B:40 20:28'>Num 20:28</a>), was therefore to elicit repentance in him. And this is what was finally achieved at the end of the book. See on <a href='B:220 40:10'>Job 40:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p> He has broken me down on every side, and I am gone. My hope He has plucked up like a tree-</p><p> Originally, Job believed that his "hope" was predicated upon his upright ways (<a href='B:220 4:6'>Job 4:6</a>). But Job through his sufferings comes to feel he now has no "hope" (<a href='B:220 7:6'>Job 7:6</a>; <a href='B:220 14:19'>Job 14:19</a>; <a href='B:220 17:15'>Job 17:15</a>; <a href='B:220 19:10'>Job 19:10</a>). The friends suggest that Job had only the "hope" of the hypocrite, and this "hope" would perish (<a href='B:220 4:6'>Job 4:6</a>; <a href='B:220 8:13'>Job 8:13</a>; <a href='B:220 27:8'>Job 27:8</a>). Job had integrity, and on that basis he thought he had "hope". He suffered, and he lost that "hope", because he assumed that his sufferings meant that he was not in fact righteous. And yet he often reflects that he is righteous and is suffering unjustly. And so he is led to the realization that the "hope" of the righteous is by God's grace and not because of the "integrity of [Job's] ways". Judah in captivity likewise lost their "hope" (<a href='B:330 19:5'>Eze 19:5</a>; <a href='B:330 37:11'>Eze 37:11</a>). But the message of the restoration prophets was that "there is hope in your end" (<a href='B:300 31:17'>Jer 31:17</a>); they were prisoners or exiles in "hope" (<a href='B:450 9:12'>Zec 9:12</a>). And we may get the possible whiff of restoration of hope in Job; for now he compares himself to a tree plucked up, whereas in <a href='B:220 14:7-10'>Job 14:7-10</a> he has said that a tree has hope of sprouting again, but he has no hope at all. Now, he at least sees himself as the tree. These were baby steps towards faith in restoration.</p>


text:
<p> He has also kindled His wrath against me. He counts me among His adversaries-</p><p> Job feels God's wrath kindled against him (<a href='B:220 19:11'>Job 19:11</a>). The innocent Job&nbsp; experienced the judgments of God's people, against whom God's wrath was kindled (<a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a>; <a href='B:120 23:26'>2Ki 23:26</a>). Significantly, we find Elihu's wrath kindled against both Job and the friends (<a href='B:220 32:2-3'>Job 32:2-3</a>), but the wrath of God was kindled only against the friends (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). Elihu is therefore not fully reflecting God's position about Job. I have repeatedly demonstrated that the innocent Job was suffering the judgment for the sins of God's people. In the end, this came to full term in the salvation of the friends on account of Job's intercession. God's wrath was not personally against Job, it was against the friends. But Job suffered God's wrath against him, because he was to be the saviour of the friends by offering sacrifice for them and praying for them. This looks forward to the work of the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant based upon Job; experiencing the judgment for our sins, and through the representative nature of His sacrifice, being able to save us.</p>


text:
<p> His troops come on together, build a siege ramp against me, and encamp around my tent-</p><p> See on :9. Job represents both the Lord Jesus Christ and Israel. He was representative of both. This is nicely shown by how the language of 19:12-14 is reminiscent of the descriptions of the Roman armies (Christ's armies- <a href='B:470 22:7'>Mat 22:7</a>) surrounding Jerusalem in AD70. There then follows a description of Job's sufferings which has clear links with that of Christ's crucifixion in Psalms 69. "He hath put my brethren far from me (cp. <a href='B:230 69:8'>Psa 69:8</a>), and mine acquaintance are verily estranged from me. My kinsfolk have failed, and my familiar friends have forgotten me". Note how the last phrase links with Christ's description&nbsp; of&nbsp; Judas as "my own familiar friend", implying there may be a connection between the one-time friends of Job, and Judas. Both epitomized the Jewish system, and both were at one stage trusted by Job/Jesus. Other descriptions of Job's sufferings in the language of Psalms 69 include <a href='B:220 30:9'>Job 30:9</a> "Now am I their song, yea, I am their byword" (cp. <a href='B:230 69:12'>Psa 69:12</a>); <a href='B:220 22:11'>Job 22:11</a> "abundance of waters cover thee" (cp. <a href='B:230 69:1-2'>Psa 69:1-2</a>); <a href='B:220 2:11'>Job 2:11</a> the friends came "to mourn with him and to comfort him", although Job said he turned to them for comfort in vain (16:2). The Hebrew in <a href='B:220 2:11'>Job 2:11</a> is identical to that in <a href='B:230 69:20'>Psa 69:20</a>, describing Christ looking in vain for comforters.</p>


text:
<p> He has put my brothers far from me. My acquaintances are wholly estranged from me-</p><p> The brothers of Job turned against him (:17) because they all considered him "smitten of God" just as the suffering servant was considered (<a href='B:290 53:4'>Isa 53:4</a>); the Lord Jesus likewise had this experience, being initially rejected by his brothers (<a href='B:500 7:5'>Joh 7:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p> My relatives have gone away. My familiar friends have forgotten me-</p><p> This total rejection by everyone was indeed lamentable, but it led to Job turning the more intensely toward God, despite the apparent distance of God from him. And this apparently hopeless situation of being rejected by all his family in <a href='B:220 19:13-16'>Job 19:13-16</a> was reversed at the end when all his relatives again came to him (<a href='B:220 42:11'>Job 42:11</a>). The way they give him a piece of money and an earing appears to be some kind of gratitude for his salvation of them. They thus recognized their guilt and expressed deep gratitude that although they had rejected him, his sufferings and their rejection of him had led to their salvation. For we can deduce from the gift of a piece of money that they feel they have sinned, and he has saved them. So again, his restoration was the restoration of others, the friends and his family who had rejected him. He had born the sufferings for their sins, and thus becomes a type of the Lord Jesus, who suffered the judgments for sin in order to save those who had rejected and abused him.</p>


text:
<p> Those who dwell in my house, and my maids, count me for a stranger. I am an alien in their sight-</p><p> This is quoted in the Messianic <a href='B:230 69:18'>Psa 69:18</a> concerning the Lord's sufferings on the cross.</p>


text:
<p> I call to my servant, and he gives me no answer. I beg him with my mouth-</p><p> The begging was for bread; see on <a href='B:220 15:23'>Job 15:23</a>. This is how desperately low Job became. "Beg" is the word for 'grace'; see on :21.</p>


text:
<p> My breath is offensive to my wife. I am loathsome to the children of my own mother-</p><p> "Loathsome" is not the best translation, the Hebrew word is usually translated to be gracious to. Perhaps the idea is that he asked his brothers for grace, but wasn't afforded it. The usage of the word suggests Job for the first time is thinking about grace, undeserved favour; and this is what he is led to realize at the end when God appears. But this was one of the baby steps towards that. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p> Even young children despise me. If I arise, they speak against me-</p><p> Job was finally to be the saving hero of his society. Likewise the exiles who had been despised were to be praised by all in the restored Kingdom (<a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a> s:w:). All because Job was the suffering servant, despised and rejected of all and yet finally saviour of those who despised him, just as the Lord Jesus to a far greater extent (<a href='B:290 53:3'>Isa 53:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p> All my familiar friends abhor me. They whom I loved have turned against me-</p><p> This abhorrence of Job by the friends is related to the way they considered mankind to be "abominable and corrupt" (<a href='B:220 15:16'>Job 15:16</a>). "Abhor" is the same word as "abominable". The simple truth is as Job put it- God has a tender desire to man, the work of His hands (<a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). And whatever we posit about human nature, we say about the Lord Jesus. He fully shared that nature and yet was holy, harmless and undefiled (<a href='B:650 7:26'>Heb 7:26</a>). Man by nature, just standing there as flesh and blood before God, is not "abominable" to Him of himself. It is sin which is the problem; and sin is not inevitable. We must bear full responsibility for our sins and cannot just pass them off as an inevitable function of our humanity. The wrong view of human nature held by the friends affected their view of Job and people in practice. The lower our view of human nature, the more likely we are to despise human beings rather than value them and speak well of them because they are made in the image of God (<a href='B:660 3:9'>Jas 3:9</a>).</p><p>It must be noted that the satan never occurs again, under that name. The real adversary of Job was his "friends"; and in God's final judgment, it is they who are condemned, not 'satan'. It is therefore reasonable to see a connection between the satan and the 'friends' of Job; they too walked to and fro in the earth in order to come to him, as it seems satan did at the beginning. And we pause here for another lesson. The great satan / adversary of Job turned out to be those he thought were his friends in the ecclesia. And so it has been, time and again, in our experience: our sorest trials often come from the words of our brethren. Without underestimating the physical affliction of Job, his real adversary was his brethren. Rather than bemoaning his physical affliction, he commented how his friends had become his satans (<a href='B:220 19:19'>Job 19:19</a>) And so with the Lord Jesus, whom Job so accurately typified. Again, without minimizing the material agony of His flesh, the essential piercing was from His rejection at the hands of those He died for. For other reasons to connect the satan with the friends, see on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p> My bones stick to my skin and to my flesh. I have escaped by the skin of my teeth-</p><p> Job was just about hanging on to life, and so he had the hope of restoration. This was the position of the exiles. From their living death they would be given new skin and flesh in revival (<a href='B:330 37:6'>Eze 37:6</a>; <a href='B:330 37:8'>Eze 37:8</a>) after the pattern of Job- if they wished to follow his example of repentance.</p>


text:
<p> Have pity on me, have pity on me, you my friends-</p><p> The word for "grace" is used four times in quick succession (:16,17 and twice in :21). Job is now appealing for grace, even if he is deemed guilty. Job for the first time is thinking about grace, undeserved favour; and this is what he is led to realize at the end when God appears.</p><p>For the hand of God has touched me-</p><p> "Touch" is the word used by the satan in <a href='B:220 1:11'>Job 1:11</a>, showing again that the hand of the Satan was the hand of God, and Job understood this. The friends insist that "the destroyer" [by which they surely meant an early equivalent to 'the devil' of popular belief today] had touched Job- whereas Job insists that it is God who had destroyed him (<a href='B:220 15:21'>Job 15:21</a> cp. 19:10; 13:21). In some ways the book of Job is a deconstruction of the popular Persian and Canaanite myths about a 'satan' figure. Job, both in the story of his sufferings and his specific words, seeks to demonstrate that the essential issues in life is being "just with God", and not whether or not we are touched by the hand of an evil being; for the hand of God which touched Job (<a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>) is the hand of 'satan' into whom God delivered Job temporarily (<a href='B:220 1:12'>Job 1:12</a>). Job says that the attitude of the friends is wrong- they should be looking into themselves, rather than fantasizing about the action of some unseen evil being they imagined: "Ye should say, Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in me?... know that there is a [personal] judgment"(<a href='B:220 19:28-29'>Job 19:28-29</a>).</p><p>Job understood God to be in control in Heaven; he rejects the idea of a cosmic conflict going on ‘up there’ which the friends seem to allude to. More specifically, Job speaks of how God’s hand forms and can pierce the “crooked serpent” and smite any monster (<a href='B:220 26:11-14'>Job 26:11-14</a>). It’s as if Job is mocking the idea that God has let him go into the hands of the cosmic monsters which the friends believed in. For Job so often stresses that it is the “hand of God” which has brought His affliction (<a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>; <a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>). That Divine hand was far greater than any mythical ‘Satan’ figure. The theme of his speech in Job 28 is that Yahweh alone is to be feared throughout the entire cosmos. Nobody else – such as the ‘Satan’ figures alluded to by the friends – needed to be feared.</p>


text:
<p> Why do you persecute me as God, and are not satisfied with my flesh?-</p><p> The friends ended up playing God. They presumed to judge Job according to their own limited and inaccurate theology, by assuming that he must have sinned in order to receive such terrible trials from God. Zophar claims to have revealed Job’s guilt, and then says that “the heavens”- an ellipsis for “God”- have revealed Job’s guilt (<a href='B:220 20:27'>Job 20:27</a>). Job figured out what was happening when he complained to them: “Why do you hound me as though you were divine?” (<a href='B:220 19:22'>Job 19:22</a> NAB). But something good came out of all this for Job. The way the friends played God set up a kind of dialectic, from which Job came to perceive more powerfully who God really was- and, moreover, how in fact this God would ultimately save him rather than destroy and condemn him, as the friends falsely thought. By ‘dialectic’ I mean that the way the friends presented a false picture and manifestation of God’s judgment led Job to react against it, and thereby come to a true understanding of God’s judgment. Having stated his perception that the friends are indeed playing God (<a href='B:220 19:22'>Job 19:22</a>), Job goes straight on to make a solemn and important statement. The solemnity of it is witnessed by his request that what he was now going to say would be inscribed in rock with the point of a diamond as a permanent record (<a href='B:220 19:24'>Job 19:24</a>). And that solemn statement was that he knew that God would be his vindicator at the last day, that he would “see God”, that he would have a bodily resurrection, and that at that time it would be the friends who would be condemned (<a href='B:220 19:25-29'>Job 19:25-29</a>). This supreme statement of faith, hope and understanding was elicited from Job because of the rejection he suffered from his friends, and the way they so inaccurately and wrongly played God in wrongly condemning him on God’s behalf. Job thus came to long for the judgment seat. There are few believers who have reached that level of intimacy with God- but Job did, thanks to the way his friends so cruelly turned against him. And this is a major lesson we can take from being the victim of slander, misunderstanding and misjudgment by our own brethren.</p>


text:
<p> Oh that my words were now written! Oh that they were inscribed in a book!-</p><p> The existence of the book of Job is proof enough that his wish was granted. His request, however, shows baby steps towards realizing that his sufferings can be used for a greater and wider purpose. He was not just suffering for himself. And finally his salvation of his friends and family [possibly leading to the resurrection of his slain children] was realized by him to be the outcome of this sufferings. He, the innocent, had born their sins in his own body, just as the Lord did. Earlier he had offered sacrifice for his children, but this was not enough; a representative sufferer was needed. For now, he is only just beginning to move towards this realization.</p>


text:
<p> That with an iron pen and lead they were engraved in the rock forever!-</p><p> An "iron pen" is only found again in <a href='B:300 17:1'>Jer 17:1</a>, where Judah's sin is written with an iron pen. The desire for suffering to be remembered was strong amongst the exiles as it was with Job.</p>


text:
<p> But as for me-</p><p> Given the context, the idea may be that whether or not his suffering achieves anything for others, he is confident of his own salvation at the end.</p><p>I know that my Redeemer lives-</p><p> God was the redeemer of His people from slavery and captivity (<a href='B:20 6:6'>Exo 6:6</a>; <a href='B:20 15:13'>Exo 15:13</a>). Job felt his sufferings had placed him in some kind of slavery or captivity, from which he needed redemption or 'buying out'. And he believed that God was that redeemer. In these feelings, he becomes the exact representative of the suffering exiles in slavery and captivity. A redeemer from slavery was typically a close relative (<a href='B:30 25:48'>Lev 25:48</a>; s:w. "kinsman" in <a href='B:80 4:8'>Rth 4:8</a>), and this is how Job came to perceive the God whom he felt was so apparently silent and distant. He is a parade example of not being ultimately fazed by the apparent silence of God. The exiles were intended to rejoice that they had a redeemer, again, after the pattern of Job (<a href='B:290 41:14'>Isa 41:14</a>; <a href='B:290 43:1'>Isa 43:1</a>; <a href='B:290 43:14'>Isa 43:14</a>; <a href='B:290 44:6'>Isa 44:6</a>; <a href='B:290 44:22-23'>Isa 44:22-23</a> etc:); and their redemption from Babylon was ultimately to be from death itself (<a href='B:350 13:14'>Hos 13:14</a>).</p><p>In the end-</p><p> AV "latter day" is wrong. There is no Hebrew equivalent here for the idea of a "day". The idea is simply, in the future.</p><p>He will stand upon the earth-</p><p> "Earth" here is the word for dust. If the land or physical planet earth was in view, then eretz would probably have been used as it is elsewhere in Job. "Stand" doesn't have to imply resurrection; the idea is of being 'raised up', as the Messiah was to be raised up from amongst His brothers (<a href='B:50 18:15'>Deu 18:15</a>; <a href='B:300 23:5'>Jer 23:5</a>). Putting the ideas of the verse together, Job looked for a Messiah-Saviour figure similar to himself to be raised up in the future, who would be the living God manifested in human dust and ashes like Job's (<a href='B:220 7:21'>Job 7:21</a>; <a href='B:220 17:16'>Job 17:16</a>). The Lord Jesus was not God Himself nor did He personally pre-exist, but Job's idea is that this person was to be his representative, of his own dust, but raised up by the living God. His sufferings led him to long for someone exactly like the Lord Jesus- and that longing ultimately came true.</p>


text:
<p> After my skin is destroyed-</p><p> In <a href='B:220 2:4-6'>Job 2:4-6</a> we have the ‘Satan’ commenting that Job’s flesh and skin need to be harmed; but in <a href='B:220 19:6'>Job 19:6</a>; <a href='B:220 19:26'>Job 19:26</a> we have Job stating his faith that even though God destroys his flesh and skin, yet God shall ultimately save him. See on <a href='B:220 16:14'>Job 16:14</a>. JobThen in my flesh shall I see God-</p><p> Job understood God to be a personal being, and that in a bodily form he would 'see' Him. Seeing his body was to be destroyed in death, this can only mean he believed in a resurrection of the body. And yet he was to be brought to realize the 'now but not yet' nature of the Kingdom experience; for he came to realize that man can even now "see God" through repentance and acceptance of His great salvation: "I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth Thee" (<a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a> AV). See on <a href='B:220 42:5'>Job 42:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p> whom I, even I, shall see for myself. My eyes shall see it, and not a stranger’s. My heart is consumed within me-</p><p> Whatever value Job's sufferings may have had for others, Job was rejoicing in the intensely personal nature of salvation. He whose eyes and body were fading into death would in a corporeal form see God for himself. "And not a stranger's" connects with what we noted on :23; Job had begun to realize that his sufferings were for others' benefit, even though he didn't know who, they were still strangers to him. His point is that notwithstanding that, he was now beginning to grasp the utter wonder of his personal salvation.</p><p>As Job's emphasis on the coming of Messiah and judgment increased, so his concentration on his present sufferings decreased. His heart was consumed within him with desire for that day. 2 Timothy 4 can be regarded as Paul's most mature spiritual statement, written as it was just prior to his death. In <a href='B:620 4:1'>2Ti 4:1</a>; <a href='B:620 4:8'>2Ti 4:8</a>, Paul's mind was clearly on the second coming and the certainty of judgment. He realized, in that time of undoubted maturity, that the common characteristic of all the faithful would be that they all loved the appearing of Christ. But do we love the appearing of Christ as Job did? Is it really all we have in life? Is our conscience, our faith in the grace of God, our real belief in the blood of the cross, so deep that we love the idea of the coming of judgment, that we would fain hasten the day of His coming?&nbsp; Job's love of the Lord's coming grew very rapidly. Before, he was too caught up with bitterness about his unspiritual fellow 'believers', effectively justifying himself in the eyes of his ecclesia and his world, full of passive complaints about his own sufferings... and so he didn't love that day as he later came to. You and I personally will be in God’s Kingdom, with our arms around each other in the rubble of Jerusalem. We will personally be there. We will see Abraham there (<a href='B:490 13:28'>Luk 13:28</a>); as Job says, with our own eyes we will behold our Lord, and not through anyone else’s eyes (<a href='B:220 19:27'>Job 19:27</a>). Our eyes shall behold the King in the beauty which we personally perceive in Him (<a href='B:290 33:17'>Isa 33:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p> If you say, ‘How we will persecute him!’; because the root of the matter is found in me-</p><p> Having begun by complaining about the friends and then moved to rejoicing in God's future salvation of him, Job now returns to address the friends. Here and in :29 he appeals for them not to judge him but to repent and prepare for judgment day. This is not at all out of context with the passionate rejoicing in personal salvation he has just expressed in :25-27. The connection is in that he desperately wanted the friends to be there too, to share his wonderful hope. But whilst they continued condemning him, they would unlikely be there; for God has always operated the principle that those who judge / condemn will themselves be condemned (<a href='B:470 7:1'>Mat 7:1</a>), and that is just what they were doing. And Job wants them to stop that and be saved. The situation arose because they considered that Job was totally at fault, and they were intended to persecute him on God's behalf. If they had realized that we are not to judge in the sense of condemning, and left the possible sins between God and Job (see on :4), then they would not have worked themselves into the situation they were now in- thinking it was their duty to persecute Job. This is one of several passages where Job speaks as if the friends were responsible for his physical persecution (cp::22); as if they had brought the calamity which the opening chapters make satan responsible for. See on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>, and note how the satan figure morphs into the friends as the book continues.</p>


text:
<p> be afraid of the sword, for wrath brings the punishments of the sword, that you may know there is a judgment- I suggest that this expresses a deep concern in Job for the final salvation of the friends; see on :28. He urges them to be aware that the wrath they have could lead to their own punishment by the Divine sword of judgment. And he wants them to realize "there is a judgment". His basic desire to save them is rewarded. God does appear in judgment and condemn the friends, and asks Job to save them by his prayers and sacrifices for them.</p>


text:
<p> Then Zophar the Naamathite answered-</p><p> Job has just uttered a wonderful statement of ecstatic joy at the prospect of his personal, future salvation, and then has gone on to appeal for the friends to repent and stop judging him, so that they might share it (<a href='B:220 19:25-29'>Job 19:25-29</a>). Zophar is so proud and angry that all he can do is lash out at Job, totally ignoring Job's faith, hope and appeal. This is characteristic of how the friends generally refuse to engage with Job's actual words and arguments, because they are so obsessed with their own narrative they have spun about Job. And this refusal leads Zophar to crudeness (:7,15) and basically predicting the violent destruction of Job, with heaven and earth united in witness against his evil (:24-28).</p>


text:
<p> Therefore do my thoughts make me answer, even by reason of my haste that is in me-</p><p> Elihu opens his response with something similar, leading us to see Elihu as summarizing the arguments of the friends and Job.</p>


text:
<p> I have heard the reproof which seeks to shame me. The spirit of my understanding makes me answer-</p><p> The "reproof" was Job's genuine appeal to the friends to stop condemning him because they might thereby miss out on the wonderful personal salvation which Job rejoiced in (<a href='B:220 19:25-29'>Job 19:25-29</a>). To be told 'You are too judgmental' made Zophar even more judgmental and angry.</p>


text:
<p> Don’t you know this from old time, since man was placed on earth-</p><p> We the audience become almost bored by the way the friends keep on claiming that ancient sage wisdom is the source of truth, and any new revelation must be wrong just because it is new. But this sense of weariness at their repetition is intentional. We are led to realize that indeed, dialogue cannot progress if the participants simply return to the same old arguments all the time and refuse to engage with the responses.</p>


text:
<p> that the triumphing of the wicked is short, the joy of the godless but for a moment?-</p><p> Job's relatively brief period of prosperity is interpreted as meaning that Job was "wicked... Godless". Again we see how the wrong theology (in this case, that suffering implied personal sin) led to a headlong dive into ever more false assumptions, and condemning an upright man.</p>


text:
<p> Though his height mount up to the heavens, and his head reach to the clouds-</p><p> This was of special relevance to the captives in Babylon. These words are used of Babylon's king who was to fall (<a href='B:340 4:22'>Dan 4:22</a>), an event the restoration prophets associate with Israel's restoration. Again, the friends state certain truths which are even quoted in later scripture, but they hold those truths within the wrong frames of reference when it comes to Job. And this is the problem with 'truth' about a matter being held isolated from a wider framework, and without connection to the things of the spirit. For God seeks worshippers in "spirit and truth". See on :9.</p>


text:
<p> yet he shall perish forever like his own dung. Those who have seen him shall say, ‘Where is he?’-</p><p> Bildad's anger is such that he becomes crude in his vicious desire to curse Job. We recall that just shortly before, he had been sitting in silence with Job seeking to comfort him as a friend and fellow worshipper. This is how quickly relationships can go wrong, and false suppositions and lack of engagement with a person as an individual can lead to them going down a totally different track.</p>


text:
<p> He shall fly away as a dream, and shall not be found. Yes, he shall be chased away like a vision of the night-</p><p> Bildad is dogmatic that after Job's death, there can be no restoration, and he bitterly stresses this in the following verses. Later events were to show him how wrong he was. And he then is thereby presented as a warning to the exiles who tended to believe that restoration to the land of promise was impossible for them.</p>


text:
<p> The eye which saw him shall see him no more, neither shall his place any more see him-</p><p> Again, this is a true enough picture of death, and shows the error of all primitive fears of ghosts of the dead haunting their previous living places, reincarnation etc. But that truth is misused by Bildad and is seen without the wider context of God's power to restore and resurrect. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p> His children shall seek the favour of the poor. His hands shall give back his wealth-</p><p> Job's wealth had been taken from him by Temanite invaders, from the same area as Eliphaz the Temanite. His hands didn't give it back. This is another hint that the Satan figure morphs with the friends, and they were actually the ones behind the stealing of Job's wealth, on the basis that they believed that as a sinner, it ought to be taken from him. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p> His bones are full of his youth, but youth shall lie down with him in the dust-</p><p> AV "full of the sins of his youth". Job has earlier admitted the possibility that he had sinned in youth, so perhaps he had indeed sinned as a young man. Seeing they could see nothing apparently sinful in Job at that time, they concluded he must have sinned earlier, or was sinning in a way hidden from them. They were desperate to impute sin, finding possible fault in everything; whereas the way of love and of the spirit is to seek to impute righteousness as God does to us, and as He does to Job at the end. This of itself was a huge rebuke to how the friends had done just the opposite.</p>


text:
<p> Though wickedness is sweet in his mouth, though he hide it under his tongue-</p><p> As noted on :11, the implication is that although they had to admit there was no sin in Job's current lifestyle, they concluded that his sufferings meant he had either sinned in youth, or was hiding his current sins from them.</p>


text:
<p> though he spare it, and will not let it go, but keep it still within his mouth-</p><p> The idea is that Job has sinned secretly and will not let that sin go but savours it.</p>


text:
<p> yet his food in his bowels is churned. It is cobra venom within him-</p><p> As noted on :6, there is truth in these statements, in this case, that sin becomes its own punishment; the sin secretly kept in the mouth and enjoyed as a tasty morsel, turns into the venom of judgment when swallowed. But it is truth without context, just as a Bible text without context is a pretext... for various wrong thinking and behaviour.</p>


text:
<p> He has swallowed down riches, and he shall vomit them up again. God will cast them out of his belly-</p><p> It was in fact Israel who had taken riches but not by right, and would vomit them up again (<a href='B:300 17:11'>Jer 17:11</a>). Job had not done this, but was treated and judged as if he had. Again we see how he was suffering as an innocent representative of his peoples' sins. If indeed it was the friends who had seized Job's wealth wrongfully (see on :10), then Job becomes so powerfully their saviour at the end. He suffered the judgments for what they had done, although he had not done those things; and so he bore their sins. Through his prayer and offering for them at the end, he thereby saved them. He was suffering for the salvation of his friends, although at the time it seems he didn't realize it. The Lord Jesus did the same to a far greater extent, but He learned the lesson of Job and was aware that His sufferings were for our salvation. See on :16,18; <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>.</p>


text:
<p> He shall suck cobra venom. The viper’s tongue shall kill him-</p><p> As noted on :15, this was the judgment of Israel in their apostasy (<a href='B:50 32:32-33'>Deu 32:32-33</a>; <a href='B:290 59:16'>Isa 59:16</a>; <a href='B:300 8:14'>Jer 8:14</a>; <a href='B:300 9:15'>Jer 9:15</a>; <a href='B:300 23:15'>Jer 23:15</a>; <a href='B:310 3:5'>Lam 3:5</a>). Like the Lord Jesus, who also drunk gall on the cross (s:w. "venom"; <a href='B:230 69:21'>Psa 69:21</a>), Job was suffering the judgment for others' sins, so that he might finally save them.</p>


text:
<p> He shall not look at the rivers, the flowing streams of honey and butter-</p><p> Honey and butter were the blessings for obedience to the covenant; Job was suffering as if he had been disobedient to the covenant, just as the Lord did.</p>


text:
<p> That for which he laboured he shall restore, and shall not swallow it down. According to the substance that he has gotten, he shall not rejoice-</p><p> Bildad was clearly jealous of Job's wealth, adopting the thinking of the Satan who suggested these things originally. But he justifies this by saying that Job has taken his wealth from others, and the Bedouin bands who had stolen it were in fact just taking back what Job had taken wrongfully from them. If indeed it was the friends who had seized Job's wealth wrongfully (see on :10), then all Bildad is saying becomes true for him. And he is therefore only to be saved by Job, the innocent, bearing the judgments for his sins.</p>


text:
<p> For he has oppressed and forsaken the poor. He has violently taken away a house, and he shall not build it up-</p><p> Bildad assumes Job must have done something like this, to deserve his sufferings. Job engages with what Bildad says and denies it (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a>; <a href='B:220 31:17'>Job 31:17</a>). Again we note that Job engages with the actual words of the friends, whereas they tend to attack him in terms of the straw man image of him they had built up in their minds, ignoring him as a person and the actual words he says. This is typical of how dialogue goes wrong.</p>


text:
<p> Because he knew no quietness within him, he shall not save anything of that in which he delights-</p><p> AV "quietness in his belly". Bildad is back to his crude comparison of Job's sin and wealth with tasty things he had secretly eaten (:15) which now swallowed, were working within his stomach to produce death by his bowels excreting them all.</p>


text:
<p> There was nothing left that he didn’t devour, therefore his prosperity shall not endure-</p><p> The satan had begun by saying that God had given Job wealth, but if that wealth was taken away, he would curse God. The satan then morphs into the friends, the "sons of God" present in the prologue, and they continue the role of the satan as the story progresses. But Zophar has now moved beyond the original suspicion. He now paints Job as a man who had not so much been given wealth by God, but had greedily devoured the wealth of others and was now paying the price, and justice was making him relinquish all his ill gotten wealth. Again we see a parade example of how dialogue breaks down. An initial suspicion (however legitimate the suspicion) becomes exaggerated into a totally different accusation, which has no basis in reality and is outright slander, however confidently presented.</p>


text:
<p> In the fullness of his sufficiency, distress shall overtake him. The hand of each one who is in misery shall come on him-</p><p> Zophar is reasoning that those who had been reduced to misery by Job could now legitimately put their hand upon him. In the prologue, Job is placed in the hand of the satan, with the reminder that this hand is ultimately God's hand. Zophar now defines that "hand" as the hand of those whom Job has supposedly grabbed wealth from and reduced to misery. Again we have the suspicion that some of the trials were brought upon Job by the friends, who reasoned themselves into the assumption that they were the ones from whom Job had taken wealth. This is the classical outworking of envy and jealousy; 'you are wealthy... you have more than me... I am poorer than you... because... you took my wealth from me and added it to your own!'.</p>


text:
<p> When he is about to fill his belly, God will cast the fierceness of His wrath upon him. It will rain on him while he is eating-</p><p> A clear reference to how "the fire of God" had consumed Job's wealth and children, at the very apex of his prosperity. God casting wrath through His Divinely controlled "angels of evil" is the very phrase used of His judgment of His sinful people (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>; <a href='B:330 7:3'>Eze 7:3</a>). We noted the connection between the Satan and such "angels of evil" on <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>. Again, Job is presented is experiencing the judgments of God' sinful people, whilst personally innocent.</p>


text:
<p> He shall flee from the iron weapon. The bronze arrow shall strike him through-</p><p> Zophar claims that Job was going to flee from the arrow of Divine judgment, but would all the same be struck through by it (<a href='B:220 20:24-25'>Job 20:24-25</a>). God's response was that His creatures didn't flee from His arrows (s:w. <a href='B:220 41:28'>Job 41:28</a>). Neither did Job flee from God; he uses the same term to describe how the wicked vainly tried to flee from God (<a href='B:220 27:22'>Job 27:22</a>). He was in harmony with the natural creation. Zophar was wrong. Job didn't flee from God but quite the opposite- he keeps begging God to reveal Himself, and He does so at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> He draws it forth, and it comes out of his body. Yes, the glittering point comes out of his liver-</p><p> Zophar is gloating in the judgment that he was sure would come upon Job. We marvel at how quickly he has transformed his position from the man who came and sat down with Job seven days in silence, perhaps sincerely seeking to comfort Job in his affliction. But now by this point, the friends have reasoned themselves into a position where they not only think Job's sufferings are legitimate and deserved, but gloat at the prospect of his further and final sufferings, with his liver pierced by God's arrows, and the arrow coming out of the other side of his body. This is how far the relationship broke down, all because of a refusal to understand Job as a person and engage with what he was actually saying and who he really was.</p><p>Terrors are upon him-</p><p> "Terrors" are again the judgment of God upon an apostate Israel, whom Job was suffering for whilst innocent, after the pattern of the later Lord Jesus (<a href='B:50 32:25'>Deu 32:25</a> s:w:). Those "terrors" were likely understood by the friends as some kind of demonic beings. God deconstructs this by explaining that the great beasts He has created likewise were 'terrible' (s:w. "terrors"). But the simple point was that He had created them and was totally in control (s:w. <a href='B:220 39:20'>Job 39:20</a>; <a href='B:220 41:14'>Job 41:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p> All darkness is laid up for his treasures. An unfanned fire shall devour him. It shall consume that which is left in his tent-</p><p> This implies Job still had some wealth concealed in his tent. But that seems unlikely, seeing he was literally begging for bread (see on <a href='B:220 15:23'>Job 15:23</a>) and squatting in deserted houses (see on <a href='B:220 15:28'>Job 15:28</a>). Again the friends are dogmatically asserting what they had previously begun by surmising. This again is how relationships go wrong when there is no actual engagement with what the person really is saying and their actual location in reality.</p>


text:
<p> The heavens shall reveal his iniquity. The earth shall rise up against him-</p><p> The friends became assured that God, "the heavens", knew Job was a sinner, and "earth" would rise up against Job in harmony with "heaven". Again, the dialogue broke down because of their assumptions, which they came to assume were supported by God, and therefore their reasoning went full circle- they, as the "earth", were rising up against Job in harmony with "heaven".</p>


text:
<p> The increase of his house shall depart. They shall rush away in the day of His wrath-</p><p> Alluding to the destruction of Job's house / family. The friends have moved on from the original concern of the satan, who morphs into them. The initial question was whether Job only believed in God because God had materially blessed him. And so God gave all Job had into the hand of the 'satan'. The removal of Job's wealth was never intended to be an outcome of God's wrath. Rather was it part of an experiment, if you like, to teach the satan and the friends something. But they had moved far further from that position, and were talking in terms of Divine wrath and judgment against Job. This moving on from original questions and concerns about an individual is exactly what we see in relationship breakdown today. The original issues are unrecognizable compared to the accusations which the original issues morph into.</p>


text:
<p> This is the portion of a wicked man from God, the heritage appointed to him by God- As explained on :28, the removal of Job's wealth was in order to test Job and reveal him to God and man. It was not a judgment of a wicked man; the prologue is at pains to point out that Job was "perfect" (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>) and not a "wicked man".</p>


text:
<p> Then Job answered-</p><p> I have consistently noted how Job actually engages with the words of the friends, whereas they pay little attention to his words and attack him in terms of the straw man they have created. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p> Listen diligently to my speech. Let this be your consolation-</p><p> As noted on :1, Job engages with what the friends have said, whereas they attack him in terms of vague generalities without such specific engagement with his words. In this chapter he specifically answers what Zophar has said in Job 20. He argues that (contrary to what Zophar has just claimed in the previous speech) in fact the wicked are rarely cut down in this life, instead they prosper (:17,18). And their children often don't suffer for the sins of the parents but instead profit from them (:19-21).</p>


text:
<p> Allow me, and I also will speak; after I have spoken, mock on-</p><p> This may be an invitation to them to hear what he has actually said and only then "mock on", rather than continually attacking the straw man image of him they had created in their minds (see on :1,2). "Mock" is the word for "scorn" used of the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant based upon Job (<a href='B:230 22:7'>Psa 22:7</a>). The application to Hezekiah's time is that the people of Judah were likewise scorned by their enemies (<a href='B:290 37:22'>Isa 37:22</a>); and to the exiles in that they too were mocked by the opponents to the rebuilding by men who came from the same ethnic background as the three friends (s:w. <a href='B:160 2:19'>Neh 2:19</a>; <a href='B:160 4:1'>Neh 4:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p> As for me, is my complaint to man? Why shouldn’t I be impatient?-</p><p> Job fell into the trap of thinking that his terrible situation somehow allowed him to speak whatever words came into his head. Job felt he hadn’t been ‘fed’ and so he was entitled to “bray” and “low” over his misfortune (<a href='B:220 6:5'>Job 6:5</a>). Because of the weight of his sufferings, he thereby justified the fact that "Therefore have my words been rash (<a href='B:220 6:3'>Job 6:3</a>). Likewise “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit” (<a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>). “I will give free course to my complaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul” (<a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a> RV). Zophar criticizes Job being “full of talk” and speaking “the multitude of words”, “for thou sayest, my doctrine is pure” (<a href='B:220 11:1-4'>Job 11:1-4</a>)- as if Job felt that because he held true doctrine he was justified in pouring out words as he did. “Why should I not be impatient?” (<a href='B:220 21:4'>Job 21:4</a> RV). “Today is my complaint bitter. My stroke is heavier than my groaning” (<a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>)- i:e. his complaining was due to his sufferings. “If I hold my peace, I shall give up the spirit” (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a> RVmg:). Job felt that the situation he was in forced him to use the words he did, and certainly justified it [we may well have used this reasoning ourselves when justifying the use of bad language]. But in the end, Elihu on God’s behalf rebuked him for his wrong words. And Job himself recognized: “I am vile. I will lay mine hand upon my mouth” in regret of his words (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). “Wherefore I loathe my words and repent” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:). He realized his mistake: he had thought that the situation justified his words. Now he hung his head and admitted that there was no justification for speaking in the way he had. Especially in the matter of the tongue, we can so easily justify ourselves; ‘I only said / did it [or didn’t do it] because</p><p>’. And it is all so child-like. Once we leave off all attempts at self-justification, we will face up to our sins.</p>


text:
<p> Look at me, and be astonished. Lay your hand on your mouth-</p><p> When Job finally lays his hand upon his own mouth (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>), he is only doing what he had earlier told the friends to do in recognition of their folly (<a href='B:220 13:5'>Job 13:5</a>; <a href='B:220 21:5'>Job 21:5</a>). Through the pain and irritation of their speeches, Job came to value and appreciate the need for silence before God. But it was only when personally confronted by God at the end that he realizes that he too had spoken too much and he repents of that in silence.</p>


text:
<p> When I remember, I am troubled. Horror takes hold of my flesh-</p><p> This horror was at the thought that although the wicked were not judged in this life, they would face a terrible future condemnation, and despite his own desperate illness and situation, he looked out of himself as did the Lord on the way to the cross, to deeply mourn the future judgment of the wicked at the last day. Here we have a wonderful window onto Job's basic loving, saving concern for others. No wonder he was the one chosen to be their representative saviour, suffering the judgment of their sins, and then invited to pray and sacrifice to bring about the salvation of the friends and his own family who had rejected him. If we too have a heart that bleeds for the condemnation of others, we will be used to save them. This is the prime qualification for all evangelism. It is this which God will use, rather than having apparently persuasive technique and evangelism materials.</p>


text:
<p> Why do the wicked live, become old, yes, and grow mighty in power?-</p><p> The answer to this question is what had made Job shudder in :6. The answer is that they will come to their judgment at the last day, as they clearly don't face it in this life.</p>


text:
<p> Their child is established with them in their sight, their offspring before their eyes-</p><p> In contrast to Job's children who were dead. The point is that Job is answering Zophar's claims that the wicked are punished through the suffering of their children, but Job is saying that this simply doesn't correspond to observable reality. Note that he engages with the words of the friends, whereas they largely ignore his words. See on See on :1,2,17.</p>


text:
<p> Their houses are safe from fear, neither is the rod of God upon them-</p><p> Their houses compare with Job's, which fell down as a result of the Angel-satan whirlwind. Earlier in <a href='B:220 9:34'>Job 9:34</a> Job pleaded: "Let Him take His rod away from me, and let not His fear terrify me". He felt he was suffering the punishment of the wicked in this life, and therefore he was drawn towards the conclusion that he would not therefore suffer it at the last day- but rather then be saved.</p>


text:
<p> Their bulls breed without fail. Their cows calve, and don’t miscarry-</p><p> Miscarriage was understood as a Divine curse (s:w. <a href='B:10 31:38'>Gen 31:38</a>; <a href='B:300 15:7'>Jer 15:7</a>; <a href='B:350 9:14'>Hos 9:14</a>; <a href='B:460 3:11'>Mal 3:11</a>). It had come upon Job, but apparently not upon "the wicked". But the references just quoted in the prophets show that it was to come upon the apostate people of God. And this is Job's point. Judgment doesn't immediately come, but it will. And he was suffering those judgments because he was representative of sinners whilst himself innocent, in the spirit of the future Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p> They send forth their little ones like a flock. Their children dance-</p><p> Again Job is answering Zophar's claim that the children of the wicked are punished, just as Job's children had been. But as noted on :1,2,8,17, Job is saying that this is just not true according to observed reality. There is a longer term Divine game plan here and Job is ever more clearly seeing it.</p>


text:
<p> They sing to the tambourine and harp, and rejoice at the sound of the pipe-</p><p> This is the language of partying. Job's children had partied regularly like this, and the fire of God had consumed them in judgment. This could be a tacit recognition from Job that his children had indeed sinned, his sin offerings for them had not of themselves been efficacious, his children had been slain "in an instant" (:13); but there still remained the mystery, that the same sin leads to immediate judgment for some, but not for others. He could even be implying that because his children had suffered it in this life, there would be future hope for their salvation. And this connects with the possibility that his slain children were resurrected, thanks to his being their sin bearer in his own body, when all things in his life are restored at the end. See on <a href='B:220 42:13'>Job 42:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p> They spend their days in prosperity. In an instant they go down to Sheol-</p><p> The idea is that they die an easy, quick and painless death. Job was dying a hard and slow death, inching ever closer to sheol rather than going there "in an instant".</p>


text:
<p> They tell God, ‘Depart from us, for we don’t want to know about Your ways-</p><p> Again as noted on :12, Job may be admitting that his children had indeed cursed God in their hearts, renouncing Him (<a href='B:220 1:5'>Job 1:5</a>). For he seems to be saying that his children had been judged in this life for their sins, but those who did the same as they had but who avoided such judgment would be judged and condemned at the last day. There may be in <a href='B:610 5:24'>1Ti 5:24</a> the idea that if we are judged for our sins in this life, we shall not be in the last day; and the reverse is true. This again could support the possibility discussed on <a href='B:220 42:3'>Job 42:3</a> that Job's slain children were resurrected when he was restored. See on :23. His sin offerings for them couldn't achieve this of themselves; but his representative suffering for them could. And this of course looks ahead to the work of the Lord Jesus, saving those whom Mosaic sacrifices of themselves couldn't save.</p>


text:
<p> What is the Almighty, that we should serve Him? What profit should we have, if we pray to Him?’-</p><p> Note the parallel between praying to God and serving Him. Those who feel incapacitate to physically serve God can take comfort from the fact that the Bible presents prayer as serving God. Again as noted on :14, Job may be admitting that his children had indeed cursed God in their hearts, renouncing Him (<a href='B:220 1:5'>Job 1:5</a>). These words are misquoted by Elihu in <a href='B:220 35:3'>Job 35:3</a> as if Job has said this about himself and about there being no profit in serving or praying to God. Yet Elihu claims to speak on God's behalf. We can however understand Elihu as merely reiterating the position of the friends, as a kind of summary at the end of their dialogues; and at the same time giving a foretaste of the speeches of God which are to come. He therefore serves as a literary device in the story, particularly required for an illiterate audience hearing or viewing the drama presented, and having inevitably forgotten the details of all the positions previously presented.</p><p>The idols and the Gentile nations amongst whom the exiles lived would not "profit" them (<a href='B:290 30:5-6'>Isa 30:5-6</a>; <a href='B:290 44:9-10'>Isa 44:9-10</a>); but as the book of Esther makes clear, they were profiting well, apparently, from remaining amongst them. But the only real "profit" would be if they quit all that and returned to Zion (<a href='B:290 48:17'>Isa 48:17</a> s:w:). But they saw no "profit" in being forgiven and restored as God's people (s:w. <a href='B:220 35:3'>Job 35:3</a>). Rather they considered the temporal "profit" of life in Babylon as far greater profit.</p>


text:
<p> Behold, their prosperity is not in their hand. The counsel of the wicked is far from me-</p><p> The idea may be as GNB "They claim they succeed by their own strength, but their way of thinking I can't accept". Job is saying that citing the various calamities of the wicked, as Zophar has just done, is not relevant to him personally as he doesn't act and think as the wicked to.</p>


text:
<p> How often is it that the lamp of the wicked is put out, that their calamity comes on them, that God distributes sorrows to them in His anger?-</p><p> The answer of course is intended to be 'Not often!'. He argues (contrary to what Zophar has just claimed in the previous speech) that in fact the wicked are rarely cut down in this life, instead they prosper (:17,18). And their children often don't suffer for the sins of the parents but instead profit from them (:19-21). We again must note how Job actually engages with the words of the friends, whereas they increasingly ignore his words and attack the image of "Job" which they have falsely created in their own minds. See on :1,2,8.</p>


text:
<p> How often is it that they are as stubble before the wind, as chaff that the storm carries away?-</p><p> This is the language of the latter day destruction of the wicked at judgment day (<a href='B:290 17:13'>Isa 17:13</a>; <a href='B:340 2:35'>Dan 2:35</a>). Job is saying that they do not have their judgment in this life, unlike his sinful children who did have it in this life; but they will be judged at the last day. He is driven towards his understanding of the last day by his own experience of injustice and the very differing judgment which sinners experience. All our struggles with the injustice of life today are designed to bring us to a similar focus- upon the return of the Lord Jesus as the just judge, and the establishment of eternal justice.</p>


text:
<p> You say, ‘God lays up his iniquity for his children’. Let him recompense it to himself, that he may know it-</p><p> GNB "You claim God punishes a child for the sins of his father. No! Let God punish the sinners themselves; let him show that he does it because of their sins". This was particularly relevant to the exiles, who considered they were unjustly suffering for their fathers' sins, and whose arguments are likewise challenged in Ezekiel 18. And in Job's immediate context, he is tacitly admitting that his children had indeed sinned and been punished- but not for his sins, but for their own sins, which he clearly was not involved in.</p>


text:
<p> Let his own eyes see his destruction. Let him drink of the wrath of the Almighty-</p><p> GNB "Let sinners bear their own punishment; let them feel the wrath of Almighty God". See on :19.</p>


text:
<p> For what does he care for his house after him, when the number of his months is cut off?-</p><p> The idea is that in fact the wickedness of the sinner is often not visited upon their children. Job argues (contrary to what Zophar has just claimed in the previous speech) that in fact the wicked are rarely cut down in this life, instead they prosper (:17,18). And their children often don't suffer for the sins of the parents but instead profit from them (:19-21). We again must note how Job actually engages with the words of the friends, whereas they increasingly ignore his words and attack the image of "Job" which they have falsely created in their own minds. See on :1,2.</p>


text:
<p> Shall any teach God knowledge, since He judges those who are high?-</p><p> "Even those in high places" (GNB). The three friends have similarities with the Jewish system. When Job speaks of "the wicked" he is digging at the friends, as they do at him when they speak of the wicked. Thus he implies here that they were trying to "teach God knowledge" - alluded to in <a href='B:520 11:34'>Rom 11:34</a> and <a href='B:530 2:16'>1Co 2:16</a>, where the Jews are mocked for thinking they can instruct God and be "His counsellor", thus linking the friends with the Jews. As Job suffered the judgments for their sins and finally redeemed them, so the Lord Jesus did for Israel.</p>


text:
<p> One dies in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet-</p><p> The idea is that "one sinner" has an easy death, whereas others have Divine judgment in this life (:25). Job has earlier accused the friends of those being "at ease" (s:w. <a href='B:220 12:5'>Job 12:5</a>). He sees them as therefore being liable to future judgment, seeing they were not receiving judgment in this life. Job had earlier lived a "quiet" life (s:w. <a href='B:220 16:12'>Job 16:12</a>). But now that had been interrupted; he was experiencing judgment now, so that he would not face it in the last day. And earlier in this chapter it seems that he considered that this is what his sinful children had experienced when God slew them, paving the way for the idea that in fact they were resurrected thanks to his restoration- see on <a href='B:220 42:3'>Job 42:3</a>.</p>


text:
<p> His pails are full of milk. The marrow of his bones is moistened-</p><p> Job's bones are often mentioned as suffering; he was receiving judgment in this life so he didn't have to face it at the last day (as in <a href='B:610 5:24'>1Ti 5:24</a>). The satan had been given specific authority to see Job's bones suffer (<a href='B:220 2:5'>Job 2:5</a>). His suffering of the condemnation of the wicked, whose bones were to suffer, was allowed on the specific understanding that God considered him righteous and not a sinner. This had been completely and willfully forgotten by the friends, who were the "sons of God" party to those initial discussions with God in the prologue.</p>


text:
<p> Another dies in bitterness of soul, and never tastes of good-</p><p> "Bitterness of soul" is the very phrase Job uses about himself (<a href='B:220 3:20'>Job 3:20</a>; <a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>; <a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a>). He clearly has himself in view. His idea is that some get their judgment in this life, as he was; and he contrasts himself with those like the friends who don't have their judgment now, but shall have it in the last day.</p>


text:
<p> They lie down alike in the dust. The worm covers them-</p><p> The implication of Job's argument, as noted on :6, is that indeed all experience death, but the difference will be at the future judgment. Job's belief in the mortality of man and death as an unconscious state is hereby revealed, and it likely stood in contrast to the majority views of the time.</p>


text:
<p> Behold, I know your thoughts, the devices with which you would wrong me-</p><p> The friends are accused of 'wronging' Job by wicked "devices"; of actually planning wrong against him. 'Wronging' is the same word as "shake off" in <a href='B:220 15:33'>Job 15:33</a>. Eliphaz was so convinced that God would do Job 'wrong' that he developed to the point of actually devising to do wrong to Job, thus confirming the sense that the friends became the 'Satan' figure and actually did the evil to Job which he initially wanted done.</p>


text:
<p> For you say, ‘Where is the house of the prince? Where is the tent in which the wicked lived?’-</p><p> "The [wicked] prince" clearly refers to Job. The friends have not exactly aid these words, but Job as it were places the implication of their positions in inverted commas, as if they had really said this in so many words- when actually they had only implied it. So again we see how dialogue goes so wrong, when parties become sure that the implication of others' positions is what they have actually said- when they haven't. The friends do the same to Job, but we can say that Job does so more accurately and fairly than they do to him.</p>


text:
<p> Haven’t you asked wayfaring men? Don’t you know their evidences-</p><p> The friends constantly appeal to the wisdom of the sages and of previous generations. Job now appeals to the general knowledge and observations of the ordinary people, the "wayfaring men". He is saying that observed reality simply differs to what the sages are saying.</p>


text:
<p> that the evil man is reserved to the day of calamity, that they are led forth to the day of wrath?-</p><p> Job is arguing that the way the wicked prosper means that they must face a future "day of wrath", and that this has been figured out by ordinary "wayfaring" people (:29) because it is so obvious. God confirms this view, by saying that He has "reserved" final judgment, although He has created the things He will use in that judgment and "reserved" them until then (<a href='B:220 38:23'>Job 38:23</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p> Who shall declare his way to his face? Who shall repay him what he has done?-</p><p> GNB "There is no one to accuse the wicked or pay them back for all they have done". The answer of course is that there is no such ultimate judgment or moral ombudsman in this life. Yet justice and judgment must be done- and there must therefore be a future day of judgment when God shall do this. Job is driven relentlessly towards a focus upon the last day, just as we are by our experiences of injustice. And the appearance of God in judgment at the end is a vindication of Job's desire.</p>


text:
<p> Yet he will be carried to the grave. Men shall keep watch over the tomb-</p><p> The wicked are carried to peaceful graves without having faced judgment (:31). But therefore, the very peacefulness of their graves is a strong argument for belief in a future day of judgment, and their resurrection to face it.</p>


text:
<p> The clods of the valley shall be sweet to him. All men shall draw after him, as there were innumerable before him-</p><p> As noted on :32, the apparent sweetness of the death and burial of the wicked, going on generation after generation, is a powerful argument that in fact there must be a day of resurrection to judgment yet to come. Or we can read with GNB "Thousands join the funeral procession, and even the earth lies gently on their bodies".</p>


text:
<p> So how can you comfort me with nonsense, because in your answers there remains only falsehood?- LXX "I have no rest from your molestation". If this reading is correct, we have more evidence that the friends were in fact the Satan, bringing the judgments upon Job. The friends initially came to "comfort" Job. But their refusal to engage with him as a person and his actual situation and words (see on :1,2) leads them to do the very opposite. And so we see how initially well meaning dialogue turns to be destructive and the reverse of "comfort". The restoration prophets announced "Comfort" to God's people who were feeling and suffering as Job (<a href='B:290 40:1'>Isa 40:1</a>; <a href='B:290 66:13'>Isa 66:13</a>); Job's lack of comforters thereby makes him representative of the exiles.</p>


text:
<p> Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered-</p><p> Much of this speech is utterly irrelevant to what Job has just said. Eliphaz assumes Job is protesting his righteousness, as noted on <a href='B:220 21:1-2'>Job 21:1-2</a>, the friends attack a straw man image they have built up of Job rather than engaging with that he has actually said. And they repeatedly forget the context of Job as explained by God in the prologue- that Job is a righteous man, and his sufferings are not judgment for sin, but rather to persuade the satan of his doubts. And the satan morphs into the friends after the end of Job 2. Eliphaz here does later mention some of Job's words (:15-20), but he misrepresents them to fit his own agenda. This again is a parade example of how dialogue breaks down and becomes more than unhelpful.</p>


text:
<p> Can a man be profitable to God? Surely he who is wise is profitable to himself-</p><p> These words are applied by Elihu to Job in <a href='B:220 35:3'>Job 35:3</a>. It seems an obvious and unkindly wilful misquotation- until we accept the viewpoint that Elihu is not so much speaking for himself, as summarizing for the audience the arguments presented so far, with Elihu playing the role of the friends in summarizing the argument so far. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p> Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that you are righteous? Or does it benefit Him, that you make your ways perfect?-</p><p> Eliphaz is now propelled by his obsession against Job to say things about God which are wildly untrue, and is specifically rebuked above the other friends for doing this at the end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>). I would surmise that his words of <a href='B:220 22:3'>Job 22:3</a> are specifically in view. For this is a complete denial of all that God reveals Himself to be. Job rightly understood that God as human creator has a tender desire to the work of His hands (see on <a href='B:220 14:15'>Job 14:15</a>). But Eliphaz speaks as if God has no interest nor feeling towards those who are righteous, so far above caring is He. And this could not be a more serious misrepresentation of the God who is thrilled by every move a man makes towards Him. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p> Is it for your piety that He reproves you-</p><p> This is sarcasm. And this is the point where we know that dialogue is now no longer dialogue. Eliphaz reached this low point because he is simply ignoring all Job has said in the previous speech, and has developed his own idea that Job's sufferings are Divine reproof- when the prologue makes clear that they were for the benefit of the satan and the "sons of God", the friends party to the original discussion about Job.</p><p>That He enters with you into judgment?-</p><p> The prologue had made it clear to the "sons of God", the friends, that Job was seen by God as a righteous man. His sufferings were not Divine judgment, but a means through which to teach the friends.</p>


text:
<p> Isn’t your wickedness great? Neither is there any end to your iniquities-</p><p> This is in total defiance of the opening explanation in the prologue that Job was not seen as wicked before God. But just as people today lose their basis in Biblical principle and statement and run headlong into assumptions which lead to breakdown of interpersonal relationships, so Eliphaz has become convinced that Job is a sinner because he is suffering. The greatness of his sufferings was in order to persuade the friends / satan about Job's righteousness; but instead they are so fixated on the idea that sin and judgment are proportional that they assume that the great sufferings imply great wickedness.</p>


text:
<p> For you have taken pledges from your brother for nothing, and stripped the naked of their clothing-</p><p> Eliphaz is so convinced that Job is suffering because he sinned that he now dogmatically states Job's sins in details. What began as internal speculation within him, he now comes out with as fact. And we see this happening all the time in broken relationships. He assumes that the stripping of Job of his clothing in <a href='B:220 19:9'>Job 19:9</a> must have been because Job had stripped others of their clothing. The same word is used of the stripping of God's people of their glory (<a href='B:330 16:39'>Eze 16:39</a>; <a href='B:330 23:26'>Eze 23:26</a>; <a href='B:400 3:3'>Mic 3:3</a>), which only happened because they themselves did not strip themselves of their clothing in repentance (s:w. <a href='B:290 32:11'>Isa 32:11</a>;&nbsp; <a href='B:330 26:16'>Eze 26:16</a>). The stripping of Job, which also recalls the stripping of the priest Aaron of his clothes and "crown" [mitre[ when his priesthood ended (<a href='B:40 20:26'>Num 20:26</a>; <a href='B:40 20:28'>Num 20:28</a>), was therefore to elicit repentance in him. And this is what was finally achieved at the end of the book.</p>


text:
<p> You haven’t given water to the weary to drink, and you have withheld bread from the hungry-</p><p> See on :6. The focus of the Lord Jesus upon the positive is shown by the way the Lord quotes <a href='B:220 22:7'>Job 22:7</a> in the parable of the sheep and goats. These words are part of Eliphaz’s erroneous allegations against Job- for Job was a perfect man, and not guilty on these counts. Yet the Lord extracts elements of truth from those wrong words, rather than just contemptuously ignoring them. Likewise <a href='B:220 22:25'>Job 22:25</a> speaks of God being our “treasure</p><p> our precious silver” (RV). Surely the Lord had this in mind when saying that our treasure must be laid up “in heaven”, i:e. with God (for He often uses ‘Heaven’ for ‘God’). And James follows suite by approvingly quoting <a href='B:220 22:29'>Job 22:29</a> about the lifting up of the humble (<a href='B:660 4:6'>Jas 4:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p> But as for the mighty man, he had the earth from you. The honourable man, he lived in it-</p><p> The accusation is that Job had given land to the mighty and famous in return for favours from them, whereas he had despised the poor (:7,9). We must recall that Job was "perfect" before God and was being tested for the sake of the education of the friends. They as the "sons of God" of <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a> were party to those discussions. But now Eliphaz is so persuaded of his pet theory that Job's sufferings are for his sins, that he feels he can speculate about what those things were. And that allowance of himself to speculate now leads him to dogmatically make false accusation; dialogue is now no longer dialogue but a feeding frenzy of hatred and self-justification. We too can so easily descend this path.</p>


text:
<p> You have sent widows away empty, and the arms of the fatherless you have broken-</p><p> As explained on :8, Eliphaz began by nursing a pet theory: Job was suffering because he had sinned, and God's word of explanation about why Job was now to suffer was ignored. This led to internal speculation about Job's possible sins; and now to utterly dogmatic assertion of that which was untrue. The path to every slander is similar.</p>


text:
<p> Therefore snares are around you. Sudden fear troubles you-</p><p> Now Eliphaz quotes some of Job's words describing his lamentable state. But still, as noted on :1, Eliphaz isn't engaging with Job's words and arguments. He is merely quoting Job's laments and descriptions of his illness, and gloating that "therefore", because of Job's sins, these things have happened. This is not engagement with the words and arguements of another.</p>


text:
<p> or darkness, so that you can not see, and floods of waters cover you-</p><p> This may refer to fits of blindness which Job complains of, and a sensation of drowning. Or the darkness can refer to the cosmic 'power of darkness' many then believed in. It can be argued that the book of Job is a dialogue concerning evil and suffering, with three popular views being represented by the three friends. These views are examined and corrected by the personal history of Job, as well as by the epilogue and prologue to the book. Eliphaz seems to be representative of the idea that Job is being hit by supernaturally controlled evil- Eliphaz speaks of a force of darkness (<a href='B:220 22:10-11'>Job 22:10-11</a>) and sinful or faulty Angels living in an unclean Heaven (<a href='B:220 4:18'>Job 4:18</a>; <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>). Yet the answer to all this is that the Satan figure is under God's control, all Job's misfortunes come from God and His Angels- one of whom may have been called 'the adversary' ('Satan')- are in fact perfectly obedient to Him and not disobedient. And finally, Eliphaz and the friends are rebuked for their various wrong understandings, with God declaring Himself supreme and ultimate sovereign. Likewise Bildad's view of Angels in <a href='B:220 25:5'>Job 25:5</a> "The stars are not pure in God's eyes" is corrected by God in <a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a>, when He says that "the morning stars sang together and all the Sons of God shouted for joy".</p>


text:
<p> Isn’t God in the heights of heaven? See the height of the stars, how high they are!-</p><p> This is similar to Eliphaz's terribly wrong claim in :3 that God is so far away that He is not so serious about human behaviour. Job however is then accused of misusing this to think that God is unable to see his sinful behaviour (:13). The final appearance of God is surely to demonstrate how close God is, and the height of His exaltation is no barrier to His relationship with and feelings toward man.</p>


text:
<p> You say, ‘What does God know? Can He judge through the thick darkness?-</p><p> This was not Job's personal view, but he was falsely accused of holding it. In fact, this was the very view of the exiles, and it was this subconscious belief that God could not see them which led to their sins in the first place (<a href='B:290 29:15'>Isa 29:15</a>; <a href='B:290 40:27'>Isa 40:27</a>; <a href='B:300 23:24'>Jer 23:24</a>; <a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a>; <a href='B:330 8:12'>Eze 8:12</a>). So even the experience of false accusation was used by God, so that Job felt the feelings of God's sinful people. Eliphaz was proven wrong enough when the God enveloped by the "thick darkness" of the Sinai theophany saw Israel's sin with the golden calf (s:w. <a href='B:50 4:11'>Deu 4:11</a>; <a href='B:50 5:22'>Deu 5:22</a>). The "thick darkness" is created by God (<a href='B:220 38:9'>Job 38:9</a>), it is He who can shroud Himself from human understanding; but this doesn't mean that He cannot "judge through the thick darkness" (<a href='B:220 22:13'>Job 22:13</a>). The thick darkness was only from man's viewpoint; not from God's. The fact man feels God to be distant and shrouded doesn't mean He actually is. And this is a fundamental truth for all time, that our perceptions of God don't mean that this is what He actually is. For God was not created by man in his image and likeness, but the other way around. "The thick darkness" is the term used to describe the exile in Babylon (<a href='B:290 60:2'>Isa 60:2</a>; <a href='B:300 13:16'>Jer 13:16</a>; <a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>). But God judged through this, and the exiles weren't hidden from God because of it.</p>


text:
<p> Thick clouds are a covering to Him, so that He doesn’t see-</p><p> See on :13. Again, these were false representations of Job, attacking a straw man image of Job which had no real existence and was only in the mind of Eliphaz. God created these thick clouds and could dissolve them at will, and maintains them within a perfect balance (s:w. <a href='B:220 37:11'>Job 37:11</a>; <a href='B:220 37:16'>Job 37:16</a>).</p><p>He walks on the vault of the sky’-</p><p> The idea is alluded to in <a href='B:290 40:22'>Isa 40:22</a>, where the context is of assuring the exiles that in fact they are not forgotten, and the God who is enthroned over Heaven and earth has the absolute power to change their situation in a moment.</p>


text:
<p> Will you keep the old way, which wicked men have trodden-</p><p> The friends continually appeal to past history. Their wisdom is supposedly in line with that of the ancient sages; and they consider Job's behaviour to be in line with that of previous sinners, those who lived before the flood (see on :16).</p>


text:
<p> who were snatched away before their time-</p><p> "Snatched away" is only s:w. <a href='B:220 16:8'>Job 16:8</a>, where Job complains his body is "shrivelled" or "snatched away". Eliphaz is claiming that Job is suffering just as those previously condemned by God had done.</p><p>Whose foundation was poured out as a stream-</p><p> Literally, "whose foundation was poured out (so as to become) a stream or flood", possibly referring to how the foundations of the earth appeared to turn into gushing waters at the flood (<a href='B:10 7:11'>Gen 7:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p> who said to God, ‘Depart from us’; and, ‘What can the Almighty do for us?’-</p><p> A misrepresentation of Job's words (<a href='B:220 21:14-15'>Job 21:14-15</a>). The friends reasoned that Job was a sinner because he was suffering, therefore he was to be seen as associated with other sinners such as those destroyed by the flood, and therefore the reported words and attitudes of those sinners must be those of Job. Like many today in pseudo dialogue, the false steps of logic all arose because they refused to engage with Job as a unique person and hear his actual words; instead they pigeon holed him within a certain category they had in their minds. And treated him as if he were like all the others they had placed him with.</p>


text:
<p> Yet He filled their houses with good things, but the counsel of the wicked is far from me-</p><p> A sarcastic quotation of Job's words, where he had denied association with the "counsel of the wicked" (<a href='B:220 21:16'>Job 21:16</a>). The descent into sarcasm is a sure sign that genuine dialogue is over. Perhaps Eliphaz is claiming that Job had justified the sinners destroyed by the flood by noting that God had "filled their houses with good things". Whilst there may be evidence of prosperity just before the flood (<a href='B:470 24:38-39'>Mat 24:38-39</a>), Eliphaz is attributing words to Job which he simply never said.</p>


text:
<p> The righteous see it, and are glad. The innocent ridicule them-</p><p> Eliphaz equates the friends with "the righteous... the innocent". But they have earlier condemned Job for claiming he is "innocent", arguing that in fact all men are impure before God. Their obsession with condemning Job led them to contradict themselves, to even condemn themselves so that they might be seen as righteous and Job as sinful. And surely "ridicule" is never appropriate for the righteous in their relationship with the wicked. Job was indeed "the innocent", but he doesn't in this sense rejoice, gloat over nor ridicule the friends. Whereas the friends do "ridicule" Job (s:w. <a href='B:220 21:3'>Job 21:3</a>). This ridiculing of the innocent by those who wrongly thought they were innocent was exactly what happened to the Lord on the cross (<a href='B:230 22:7'>Psa 22:7</a> s:w:), and what was done to the exile (<a href='B:290 33:19'>Isa 33:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p> saying, ‘Surely those who rose up against us are cut off-</p><p> LXX "Has not their substance been taken away"; Heb. "Truly our&nbsp;adversary&nbsp;is cut down". Eliphaz is saying that the righteous, himself and the friends, would rejoice in Job's death because their satan / adversary would then have been cut down. This is how completely transformed was their reasoning. They were acting as the satan to Job; for the satan figure morphs with the friends after he disappears from the story. Job was treated now as the satan, the adversary. But thereby he came to save those who were adversarial to him. He thus bore their sins whilst innocent, which is one of the great themes of the story. And it is in this aspect that he points forward to the suffering, saving work of Lord Jesus.</p><p>The fire has consumed their remnant’-</p><p> Alluding to how the fire of God consumed the wealth and family of Job.</p>


text:
<p> Acquaint yourself with Him, now, and be at peace. Thereby good shall come to you-</p><p> Eliphaz orders Job to repent, and thereby receive "good" from God. He has overlooked Job's opening position, that the righteous receive both "good" and "evil" from God's hand (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>). Again we see the defining parameters of the prologue disregarded by the friends as they rush to judge Job according to their own assumptions about him. "Acquaint yourself with Him" is the very same Hebrew phrase just used by Eliphaz in :2: "Can a man be profitable to God?". Eliphaz has been arguing that being profitable to God is not something God is interested in and Job is wasting his time. But here he contradicts himself. There are many such bald and blatant contradictions within the words of the friends. This is what happens when a preexisting agenda becomes the basis for so called dialogue, and the other party must be condemned at all costs.</p>


text:
<p> Please receive instruction from His mouth, and lay up His words in your heart-</p><p> "Instruction" is "the law", the word usually used of the law of Moses. Job was to receive it, as Israel received it (<a href='B:50 31:26'>Deu 31:26</a> s:w:). Again he is set up as the representative of Israel, who received the law but refused to put it in their heart. This was not the case with Job personally, but he was treated as if he had done what Israel did.</p>


text:
<p> If you return to the Almighty, you shall be built up-</p><p> This is language clearly relevant to the building up of the restored Zion which would happen if the exiles returned both to their God and their land. Job had not departed from the Almighty, but he was treated as if he had committed their sins.</p><p>If you put away unrighteousness far from your tents-</p><p> Eliphaz quotes verbatim from the words of Zophar in <a href='B:220 11:14'>Job 11:14</a>. This again is a parade example of dialogue gone wrong. Those on the accusing side start quoting each other as authorities, whilst continuing to ignore the actual person and words of the accused.</p>


text:
<p> Lay your treasure in the dust, the gold of Ophir among the stones of the brooks-</p><p> The idea is that Job should stop valuing wealth. Gold was washed down from the upper reaches and was found "among the stones of the brook"; and Job is bidden leave it there. Yet again, the divinely given defining parameters of the prologue are ignored; Job's wealth was from God and not because he sought it, and it was removed from him in order to teach the "sons of God", the friends. But they had done what so many do in their interpersonal relationships and supposed diaogues with others; they had ignored the paramaters defining the specific relationship in view, e.g. that we are to esteem our brother better than ourselves, we are to have the love which seeks to believe good rather than evil.</p>


text:
<p> The Almighty will be your treasure, and precious silver to you-</p><p> "Treasure" is only s:w. "treasure" in :24, the word also meaning 'gold'. God was to be Job's gold and not literal gold. LXX "and he shall bring thee forth pure as silver that has been tried by fire". This is the image used of the intended effect of Judah's sufferings in Babylon (<a href='B:290 48:18'>Isa 48:18</a>; <a href='B:330 22:18-22'>Eze 22:18-22</a>). If the LXX is correct, then Job quotes this back to Eliphaz in <a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a>. Job is arguing back that he does not love gold over God, and that he will himself come forth as gold after the trials have finished. Unlike the friends, who generally refuse to engage with Job's words in their speeches, Job specifically engages with their words. See on :7.</p>


text:
<p> For then you will delight yourself in the Almighty-</p><p> The exiles like Job were to finally delight themselves in God at the restoration, if they followed Job's path (s:w. <a href='B:290 58:14'>Isa 58:14</a>).</p><p>And shall lift up your face to God-</p><p> Perhaps the Lord had this in view when He commended the man who like Job would not lift up his face to God (<a href='B:490 18:13'>Luk 18:13</a>). The friends were only saved because Job was allowed to lift up his face to God for them (s:w. <a href='B:220 42:8-9'>Job 42:8-9</a>). This was all a powerful way of teaching the friends that they were being saved by absolute grace. The man Job, whose face they were sure God would not accept, saved them by lifting up his face to God. It was the exiles whose faces God would not accept (s:w. <a href='B:460 1:8-9'>Mal 1:8-9</a>). Job was treated like them although he was not like them; he was bearing the punishment of their sins in order to save them, just as he did for the friends, whose faces were likewise unacceptable to God.</p>


text:
<p> You shall make your prayer to Him, and He will hear you. You shall pay your vows-</p><p> This turned around in a strange way; for it was due to God hearing Job’s prayer that the friends were finally saved. God surely alludes back here when He says that Job will pray for them, “and him will I accept” (<a href='B:220 42:8'>Job 42:8</a>).</p>


text:
<p> You shall also decree a thing, and it shall be established to you. Light shall shine on your ways-</p><p> LXX "And he shall establish to thee again a habitation of righteousness and there shall be light upon thy paths". Again this is the language of later Isaiah about Zion's light and the restored Zion.</p><p>The decree which is established is parallel to the prayer which is heard (:27,28). This was in fact true of Job, for it was thanks to his prayers that the friends were finally saved; when they had here insisted that God didn't hear Job's prayers. In fact it was their prayers which were not heard. But there is a wider principle here. Absolute faith in prayer which is according to God's broad desires results in our requests&nbsp; effectively being decrees of what is now going to happen! It is not difficult for us to know what the will of God in the sense of His desires is. We have been born again by the word of God. We were not born again by the will of man, but by the&nbsp; will&nbsp; of God. The will of God is therefore found in the word of God (<a href='B:660 1:18'>Jas 1:18</a>; <a href='B:670 1:23'>1Pe 1:23</a>; <a href='B:500 1:12-14'>Joh 1:12-14</a>). Thus if we pray according to our knowledge of God's desires as explained in the word, we are praying according to His will- and therefore if we have faith "He hears us". The Lord Jesus said as much: "If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you" (<a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a>). Notice He didn't say 'you will ask whatever is according to God's will , and it will be heard'. We ask whatever we desire, and we will receive. This is because our will should be the will of God if the word of God is in us. And as we mature, our experience of answered prayer gets better, because we more intuitively sense what is God's will.</p>


text:
<p> When they cast down, you shall say, ‘Be lifted up’. He will save the humble person-</p><p> See on :7. This is quoted in <a href='B:660 4:6'>Jas 4:6</a>. As noted earlier, the friends come out with some truths, but they are framed in the wrong context. What they say is so true it is even worthy of later quotation, but the context in which they use their 'truth' is so wrong. And this is an example for all time. The friends may be saying that Job now cannot lift up the cast down by his prayers nor save anyone (:27,28) because he is a sinner. All this was turned right around at the end, where it is the friends whose prayers cannot be heard, and who are saved from their "cast down" position by Job's prayers.</p>


text:
<p> He will even deliver him who is not innocent. Yes, he shall be delivered through the cleanness of your hands- There are times and places where God is willing to save people for the sake of the spirituality of a third party, but if he or she fails in this, deliverance doesn’t necessarily arise from another place, as it would have done in Esther’s time. Eliphaz perceived all this when he told Job that a truly righteous man can “save the humble person. He shall deliver even him that is not innocent: yeah, he shall be delivered through the cleanness of thine hands” (<a href='B:220 22:30'>Job 22:30</a> RV). And this was proved true later on- for Eliphaz was saved due to Job’s mediation for him.</p>


text:
<p> Then Job answered-</p><p> Job's reply over Job 23 and Job 24 slips into self justification and fails to engage specifically with what Eliphaz has said in his last speech. Job 24 is largely a repeat of the general observation that the wicked prosper, and the suffering of anyone is therefore no sign they are sinning. This all indicates the overall decline of the dialogue. And it is a path followed by so many failed personal interactions.</p>


text:
<p> Even today-</p><p> As if to say that yes, I am still going to keep complaining about my situation.</p><p>My complaint is grievous. His hand is heavy in spite of my groaning-</p><p> AV "My stroke is heavier than my groaning”. Job fell into the trap of thinking that his terrible situation somehow allowed him to speak whatever words came into his head. Job felt he hadn’t been ‘fed’ and so he was entitled to “bray” and “low” over his misfortune (<a href='B:220 6:5'>Job 6:5</a>). Because of the weight of his sufferings, he thereby justified the fact that "Therefore have my words been rash (<a href='B:220 6:3'>Job 6:3</a>). Likewise “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit” (<a href='B:220 7:11'>Job 7:11</a>). “I will give free course to my complaint. I will speak in the bitterness of my soul” (<a href='B:220 10:1'>Job 10:1</a> RV). Zophar criticizes Job being “full of talk” and speaking “the multitude of words”, “for thou sayest, my doctrine is pure” (<a href='B:220 11:1-4'>Job 11:1-4</a>)- as if Job felt that because he held true doctrine he was justified in pouring out words as he did. “Why should I not be impatient?” (<a href='B:220 21:4'>Job 21:4</a> RV). “Today is my complaint bitter. My stroke is heavier than my groaning” (<a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>)- i:e. his complaining was due to his sufferings. “If I hold my peace, I shall give up the spirit” (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a> RVmg:). Job felt that the situation he was in forced him to use the words he did, and certainly justified it [we may well have used this reasoning ourselves when justifying the use of bad language]. But in the end, Elihu on God’s behalf rebuked him for his wrong words. And Job himself recognized: “I am vile. I will lay mine hand upon my mouth” in regret of his words (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). “Wherefore I loathe my words and repent” (<a href='B:220 42:6'>Job 42:6</a> RVmg:). He realized his mistake: he had thought that the situation justified his words. Now he hung his head and admitted that there was no justification for speaking in the way he had. Especially in the matter of the tongue, we can so easily justify ourselves; ‘I only said / did it [or didn’t do it] because</p><p>’. And it is all so child-like. Once we leave off all attempts at self-justification, we will face up to our sins.</p><p>Job understood God to be in control in Heaven; he rejects the idea of a cosmic conflict going on ‘up there’ which the friends seem to allude to. More specifically, Job speaks of how God’s hand forms and can pierce the “crooked serpent” and smite any monster (<a href='B:220 26:11-14'>Job 26:11-14</a>). It’s as if Job is mocking the idea that God has let him go into the hands of the cosmic monsters which the friends believed in. For Job so often stresses that it is the “hand of God” which has brought His affliction (<a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>; <a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>). That Divine hand was far greater than any mythical ‘Satan’ figure. The theme of his speech in Job 28 is that Yahweh alone is to be feared throughout the entire cosmos. Nobody else – such as the ‘Satan’ figures alluded to by the friends – needed to be feared.</p>


text:
<p> Oh that I knew where I might find Him! That I might come even to His seat!-</p><p> Job sought to "probe" (AV "find out") the Almighty (<a href='B:220 23:3'>Job 23:3</a>; <a href='B:220 28:12'>Job 28:12</a>), whereas Elihu appears to agree with Zophar that "the Almighty" cannot be 'found out' (<a href='B:220 11:7'>Job 11:7</a>; <a href='B:220 37:23'>Job 37:23</a>). God's own appearance at the end is perhaps an answer to this. He cannot be 'found out' by intellectual argument or personal righteousness, but He still responds to the spirit of Job's request by appearing. Instead, He 'finds out' people and saves them by grace. Paul expresses the same idea when he writes that it is not so much a case of man 'knowing God', but rather of being "known of God" by grace (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><a href='B:220 23:3'>Job 23:3</a> perhaps epitomizes this desire of Job for judgment day: “Oh, that today I might find him, that I might come to his judgment seat!” (NAB). He wanted the judgment seat to come that very day! The invisible hand of God is working in every life that suffers from ones’ brethren ‘playing God’ in false judgment of us</p><p> to lead us to this wonderful and blessed attitude.</p><p>The use of the word "order" in Job's words in 23:3-6 repays examination: " Oh that I knew where I might find (God)! that I might come even to His seat!. I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments... Will He plead against me with his great power? No". See on :10.</p>


text:
<p> I would set my cause in order before Him, and fill my mouth with arguments-</p><p> Earlier, Job had judged himself, setting in order his legal case, but declaring himself righteous (<a href='B:220 13:8'>Job 13:8</a>). By <a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>, Job is realizing that he needs to set his case in order before God; but he can't find God, or get God to engage in this game of judgment. He needed the final appearance of God at the end of the book to review his case, and declare that he is in fact wrong and condemned. But by grace, God will count him as right. He was prepared for this by Elihu's speech in <a href='B:220 37:19'>Job 37:19</a>: "Teach us what we shall tell Him, for we can’t make our case by reason of darkness". "Make our case" is s:w. "set my cause in order".</p><p>Job appeals for ‘witnesses’ (<a href='B:220 9:33-35'>Job 9:33-35</a>; <a href='B:220 16:18-22'>Job 16:18-22</a>; <a href='B:220 19:20-27'>Job 19:20-27</a>), an advocate in Heaven (<a href='B:220 9:33'>Job 9:33</a>), denies his guilt and demands a legal list of his sins (<a href='B:220 13:19'>Job 13:19</a>), he wishes for God to come to trial (<a href='B:220 9:3'>Job 9:3</a>), and thus Job is described as a man who has taken out a ‘case’ with God (<a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a>; <a href='B:220 40:2'>Job 40:2</a>). Job 29-31 is effectively Job’s declaration of legal innocence and an appeal to God to hear his case more sympathetically (<a href='B:220 31:35'>Job 31:35</a>). And of course God pronounces a final legal verdict at the very end (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>), in response to Job’s earlier plea: “Sleeplessly I wait for His reply” (<a href='B:220 16:22'>Job 16:22</a>). It’s as if the whole experience of Job was [at least partly] in order to test out the Canaanite theories of ‘Satan’, suffering and evil in the court of Heaven; and also the various theories which arose to explain Judah's captivity in Babylon. The friends represent the traditional views of evil, and often make reference to the myths of their day about ‘Satan’ figures. They speak as if they are the final court – Eliphaz speaks of how the judges and elders of their day, the “holy ones”, had concluded Job was guilty, and that they, the friends, were right: “To which of the holy ones will you appeal [legal language]?... we have [legally] examined this, and it [Job’s guilt] is true” (<a href='B:220 5:1'>Job 5:1</a>; <a href='B:220 5:27'>Job 5:27</a>). This is of great comfort to those who feel misjudged by man – above them in Heaven the ultimate Heavenly court is considering our case, and that is all that matters.</p>


text:
<p> I would know the words which He would answer me, and understand what He would tell me-</p><p> Job promises to be obedient and acceptant of whatever outcome there was from his meeting with God. And when God does finally appear and in a way condemn him, he does accept this. Or perhaps the sense is simply as in GNB "I want to know what he would say and how he would answer me".</p>


text:
<p> Would He contend with me in the greatness of His power? No, but He would listen to me-</p><p> AV "Would he plead against me…?". God, and Elihu on His behalf, did plead against Job by recounting God's power. Judgment before God was not quite as Job had imagined. When Elihu was established in Job's mind as God's true representative, he found that he had nothing to say, as he thought he would have. Elihu seems to refer back to this speech when he challenges the dumfounded Job: "If thou hast anything to say, answer me... if thou canst answer me, set thy words in order before me" (<a href='B:220 33:32'>Job 33:32</a>; <a href='B:220 33:5'>Job 33:5</a> AV). Elihu has in mind <a href='B:220 23:4'>Job 23:4</a> "I would set my cause in order before Him". Job several times spoke of how he would fully explain himself to God, if he found Him. Yet in the presence of God and Elihu, he finds that all the words dry up. Words became irrelevant. All he can do is behold the majesty of God's righteousness, and declare his own unrighteousness. That spiritual pinnacle of Job still lies ahead for the majority of us. The desire to speak is a desire to express our own thoughts. Words are a construct which can trap us. Only God's words can liberate. There is a wordless element in being truly humbled before the Almighty.</p>


text:
<p> There the upright might reason with Him, so I should be delivered forever from my judge-</p><p> Job's imagination of judgment day was that there would be some upright person present who would be as his advocate, and deliver him from God as his judge. Elihu appears according to Job's wish (<a href='B:220 33:6'>Job 33:6</a>); but he condemns Job. And God then appears in person to judge Job. Elihu couldn't save Job from that.</p>


text:
<p> If I go east, He is not there; if west, I can’t find Him-</p><p> We note there was no God to be found to the east, whereas He is apparently present at the other compass points, although invisible to Job. Perhaps this would be a reference to the spiritual bankruptcy of the children of the east, from where the friends had come from. It would also be a statement from Job, as one of the greatest of the children of the east, that there was no God in his surrounding society.</p>


text:
<p> He works to the north, but I can’t see Him. He turns south, but I can’t catch a glimpse of Him-</p><p> "The north" in Hebrew is 'the hidden place'. There appears to be the idea that God is indeed at work to the north and south, but Job can't glimpse God there.</p>


text:
<p> But He knows the way that I take-</p><p> Job cannot discern the way God takes, not even the compass point He is working on; but the point is that God knows the way Job takes. Paul expresses the same idea when he writes that it is not so much a case of man 'knowing God', but rather of being "known of God" by grace (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>). See on :3:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;When He has tried me, I shall come forth like gold-</p><p> This appears to be an allusion to <a href='B:220 22:25'>Job 22:25</a> LXX "and he shall bring thee forth pure as silver that has been tried by fire". This is the image used of the intended effect of Judah's sufferings in Babylon (<a href='B:290 48:18'>Isa 48:18</a>; <a href='B:330 22:18-22'>Eze 22:18-22</a>). If the LXX is correct, then Job quotes this back to Eliphaz here in <a href='B:220 23:10'>Job 23:10</a>. Job is arguing back that he does not love gold over God, and that he will himself come forth as gold after the trials have finished. Unlike the friends, who generally refuse to engage with Job's words in their speeches, Job specifically engages with their words.</p>


text:
<p> My foot has held fast to His steps. I have kept His way, and not turned aside-</p><p> Job says this in the context of having lamented that he senses God's activity in various places, but cannot see God there (:9,10). But he has planted his feet in the footsteps left by the invisible God and not turned aside from that path. Job "held fast" to God's footprints, even though He didn't see Him, and yet he later realized that the afflictions God sent had taken hold [s:w. "held fast"] to him (<a href='B:220 30:16'>Job 30:16</a>). We see here the mutuality between God and man, achieved through the experience of suffering brought by Him.</p>


text:
<p> I haven’t gone back from the commandment of His lips. I have treasured up the words of His mouth more than my necessary food-</p><p> Job had had no fresh revelation from God since God gave the satan power over him. Perhaps he had been party to the discussion between God, satan and the other "sons of God" (the friends) recorded in the prologue. He would have hung on to God's statement that He considered Job to be His righteous servant. And that the afflictions were somehow for the benefit of the friends / satan / "sons of God". See on :14. But there is a wider principle here. The Word of God should be our daily food - indeed, our dependence upon it, and natural desire for it, should be even greater than our instinctive appetite for physical food: “... I have treasured the words of his mouth more than my necessary food” was Job’s feeling (<a href='B:220 23:12'>Job 23:12</a>). Jeremiah likewise: “Your words were found, and I ate them, and Your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (<a href='B:300 15:16'>Jer 15:16</a>). Making time during each day for regular Bible reading is therefore a vital thing to build into our pattern of daily life. An uninterrupted 30 minutes of Bible study first thing in the morning is bound to start us off each day in the right spiritual gear. Such faith-forming habits are vital.</p>


text:
<p> But He stands alone-</p><p> The idea may be that God remained "alone" from Job's perspective, refusing to allow Job to come to Him and enter into dialogue.</p><p>And who can oppose Him? What His soul desires, even that He does-</p><p> The dramatic story of Job thrice uses the same phrase as in <a href='B:290 43:13'>Isa 43:13</a>, concluding that "who can hinder…?" God's way (<a href='B:220 9:12'>Job 9:12</a>; <a href='B:220 11:10'>Job 11:10</a>; <a href='B:220 23:13'>Job 23:13</a>). The exiles were to understand that no human opposition or discouragement can turn back or hinder God's purpose to save His people, even if they are as Job in suffering. His saving and restorative purpose will not be hindered, if we wish to identify with it.</p>


text:
<p> For He performs that which is appointed for me. Many such things are with Him-</p><p> Again Job demonstrates his understanding that all his afflictions were from God, not any cosmic satan being. And those afflictions were those "appointed"- perhaps referring to God's words in the prologue, which Job had continually meditated upon (see on :12; <a href='B:220 24:1'>Job 24:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Therefore I am terrified at His presence. When I consider, I am afraid of Him-</p><p> Job has lamented that he senses God but cannot see Him (:8,9). But clearly he felt His presence in a very real manner. So we conclude that the presence of God can be felt in His very absence. We like Job can sense His hand working through His very silence and apparent lack of direct engagement with us.</p>


text:
<p> For God has made my heart faint. The Almighty has terrified me-</p><p> See on :17. We can read this 'terror' as a reference to the panic attacks which were apparently part of Job's sickness (s:w. <a href='B:220 22:10'>Job 22:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Because I was not cut off before the darkness, neither did He cover my face with the thick darkness- The Hebrew in :16,17 is difficult, and GNB offers "Almighty God has destroyed my courage. It is God, not the dark, that makes me afraid—even though the darkness has made me blind". The darkness was typically associated with cosmic forces of evil. Job sees through that and perceives it is God behind the darkness. The exiles had to learn the same (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Why aren’t times laid up by the Almighty? Why don’t those who know Him perceive His days?-</p><p> This could be read as a complaint that God's people don't realize the time periods of His operations in advance. Job sensed that his afflictions were for a period (see on <a href='B:220 23:12'>Job 23:12</a>; <a href='B:220 23:14'>Job 23:14</a>), but he didn't know the end point. There is a purpose to that. All attempts to understand Bible prophecy as history and time periods predicted in advance are missing the whole point; these prophecies are so that we will understand once the fulfilment comes, rather than presenting history in advance.</p>


text:
<p> There are people who remove the landmarks. They violently take away flocks, and feed them-</p><p> Alluding to the taking away of Job's flocks. Probably his landmarks were removed at the same time. I have suggested that the satan figure morphs into the friends, and they may actually have been responsible for the theft of Job's flocks. The Bedouin tribes were certainly from the same areas as the friends came from. Job may be hinting that the theory that sin brought judgment was wrong, because the sins of the friends against him weren't being immediately judged.</p>


text:
<p> They drive away the donkey of the fatherless, and they take the widow’s ox for a pledge-</p><p> "Drive away" is the word used of the driving of God's people into captivity (<a href='B:50 4:27'>Deu 4:27</a>; <a href='B:50 28:37'>Deu 28:37</a>). The exiles were wondering why judgment had come upon them, and not upon their captors and abusers. The answer of the book of Job is that they were as Job, and the wicked whose day of judgment was surely to come ultimately refer to their captors.</p>


text:
<p> They turn the needy out of the way. The poor of the earth all hide themselves-</p><p> Turning aside the poor out of the way is the very phrase used in <a href='B:370 2:7'>Amo 2:7</a> of how the Jewish leadership had done this to the righteous remnant. Again, the idea is that sufferings of the righteous remnant were going to be finally judged, even though it appeared as if the wicked had got away with it. This had powerful relevance to the exiles.</p>


text:
<p> Behold, as wild donkeys in the desert, they go forth to their work, seeking diligently for food. The wilderness yields them bread for their children-</p><p> It's unclear whether those referred to are the Bedouin tribes of the preceding verses, or the desperately poor who are not helped by them (as in the subsequent verses). Possibly the ambiguity is purposeful, as if to make the point that those Bedouin tribes didn't help their own people even, and they themselves became poor and desperate. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p> They cut their provender in the field. They glean the vineyard of the wicked-</p><p> LXX "They have reaped a field that was not their own before the time: the poor have laboured in the vineyards of the ungodly without pay and without food". The impression is that they were themselves thieves and yet were also oppressed by others; see on :5.</p>


text:
<p> They lie all night naked without clothing, and have no covering in the cold-</p><p> Particularly relevant to the cold desert nights in the region.</p>


text:
<p> They are wet with the showers of the mountains, and embrace the rock for lack of a shelter-</p><p> This could perhaps hint that through the experience of affliction, men "embrace the rock", a symbol of God and His Son, the Messiah Jesus. Job likewise was in essence led to the spirit of Christ through his experience of the abuse of others and lack of comfort from his own brethren.</p>


text:
<p> There are those who pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor-</p><p> Baby stealing was exactly the sort of thing practiced by the Bedouin Arab groups who had stolen Job's property, perhaps under the direction of the friends (see on :2). Job has accused the friends of abusing the fatherless (<a href='B:220 6:27'>Job 6:27</a>). The friends accused Job of doing so (<a href='B:220 22:7'>Job 22:7</a>). Job now insists that it is the wicked who do this (<a href='B:220 24:3'>Job 24:3</a>; <a href='B:220 24:9'>Job 24:9</a>), and is dogmatic that he has in fact blessed the fatherless (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a>; <a href='B:220 31:17'>Job 31:17</a>; <a href='B:220 31:21'>Job 31:21</a>). As explained on <a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>, Job in various aspects suffers as if guilty for the very sins committed by the friends. He was their representative, and suffered the results of their sins, although he hadn't committed them. Therefore at the end, his prayer and further sacrifice for them was accepted, and they were thereby saved- by grace indeed.</p>


text:
<p> so that they go around naked without clothing. Being hungry, they carry the sheaves-</p><p> Keeping the pledge of the poor so he is left naked (:9) was recognized from earliest times as wicked behaviour. It is condemned in the law of Moses. But Job is observing that those who do even such things are apparently not immediately judged.</p>


text:
<p> They make oil within the walls of these men. They tread wine presses, and suffer thirst-</p><p> The wicked didn't even let their workers drink from the grape juice they were treading out. The law of Moses allowed even animals to eat bits of what they were treading out. This legislation clearly had a basis in very early standards of what was right and wrong, for the book of Job appears to be about a situation before the time of Moses.</p>


text:
<p> From out of the populous city, men groan. The soul of the wounded cries out, yet God doesn’t regard the folly-</p><p> Because God doesn't judge the abuses listed in the previous verses, it is therefore wrong to suggest that He immediately judges sin with suffering, and rewards obedience with material blessing. That's Job's point. But Job also feels he has 'cried out' to God for justice and not been heard (<a href='B:220 19:7'>Job 19:7</a>; <a href='B:220 30:20'>Job 30:20</a>); and that there is nothing wrong with crying out to God in distress, it is a perfectly natural reaction (<a href='B:220 24:12'>Job 24:12</a>). One comment upon this is that the young ravens cry out to God for food and yet are not always heard (<a href='B:220 38:41'>Job 38:41</a> s:w:). But God in the wider picture sustains all of creation by grace. Job did well to cry out to God even if there was no answer, because the hypocrites do not 'cry out' to God when they are facing judgment (<a href='B:220 36:13'>Job 36:13</a> s:w:). Job feels hurt that God has not responded to his 'crying out' because he says that when the needy cried out to him, he had heard (<a href='B:220 29:12'>Job 29:12</a> s:w:). But here we see his works based approach; he thought that his response to those who cried out to him meant that therefore God must respond to his crying out. And God is not so primitive. His apparent silence is because His response is not predicated upon human works and charity. It is by grace alone, as is taught in His final appearance to Job. The exiles likewise were to finally see the response to their crying out to God in the restoration (<a href='B:290 58:9'>Isa 58:9</a>), just as their representative Jonah cried out to God from the belly of sheol amidst the sea of nations, and was heard (s:w. <a href='B:390 2:2'>Jon 2:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p> These are of those who rebel against the light. They don’t know its ways, nor stay in its paths-</p><p> The implication could be that these people knew the light but refused to walk in the way of light nor its paths; whereas Job insists he has held to the true path (<a href='B:220 23:11'>Job 23:11</a>). He perhaps is making oblique reference to the friends; who may be the wicked who had stolen his flocks (see on :2). But this attacking of the partner in dialogue is an indication that the dialogue is failing: 'I held on to the true path, you didn't' is not engagement with what has been said.</p>


text:
<p> The murderer rises with the light. He kills the poor and needy. In the night he is like a thief-</p><p> Job is appearing to overly labour his point; that the wicked are not immediately judged, nor are the righteous immediately rewarded. He almost revels in his description of wicked deeds which go unpunished, making the point that light or darkness make no difference to the wicked. Darkness is not a deterrent to them; they sin equally using both the light and the darkness. Therefore the accusation that Job has sinned in darkness is therefore untrue. But Job appears to be labouring his point. This too is a feature of how dialogue goes wrong once the actual words of our partner are ignored; lengthy digressions are made to prove a relatively minor point, and the essential thrust of the arguments is thereby lost.</p>


text:
<p> The eye also of the adulterer waits for the twilight, saying, ‘No eye shall see me’. He disguises his face-</p><p> As noted on :14, the idea is that the wicked sin as much in the light as in the darkness. Murderers take the light as a signal to murder (:14), whilst adulterers wait for darkness to commit adultery.</p>


text:
<p> In the dark they dig through houses. They shut themselves up in the daytime. They don’t know the light-</p><p> As commented upon on :14, Job is far over labouring his point- that sinners sin in both the light and the darkness.</p>


text:
<p> For the morning is to all of them like thick darkness, for they know the terrors of the thick darkness-</p><p> Perhaps the idea is that they are disappointed when the morning comes, because they have to stop their wicked works. But AV "the shadow of death" for NEV "thick darkness" suggests that the morning is the time of their death. Job envisaged a morning coming which would mean judgment and death for the wicked. In the end this was to be the hope of the exiles too, that a day of judgment would come with the arising of Messiah as the dawn (<a href='B:460 4:2'>Mal 4:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p> They are foam on the surface of the waters. Their portion is cursed in the earth. They don’t turn into the way of the vineyards-</p><p> GNB "The wicked are swept away by floods, and the land they own is under God's curse; they no longer go to work in their vineyards". This is relevant to the Jews exiled from their inheritance in the land and their vineyards. AV "He is swift as the waters" may refer to the swift coming of Divine judgment, like a flash flood of waters. The same word is used of the judgment of God's people (<a href='B:310 4:19'>Lam 4:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Drought and heat consume the snow waters, so does Sheol those who have sinned-</p><p> In <a href='B:220 6:17'>Job 6:17</a>, Job sees the melting of the snow waters as representing the failing comfort of his three friends; now he uses the figure about the destruction of the wicked; he comes towards the conclusions that his friends, his fellow "sons of God" of <a href='B:220 1:6'>Job 1:6</a>, were in fact sinners, they are the wicked Bedouin people who have brought his trials (see on :2). And this is all preparing the way for him to finally pray for their forgiveness and salvation at the end of the book. Job, the righteous remnant amongst the captives, were to pray for and save the unspiritual majority; but they had to be convinced of how far astray their brethren really were. We note too that sheol, the grave, is understood by Job as the destruction of sinners; although he himself speaks of how sheol is waiting for him, although he believed he would be resurrected to justification in a bodily form. He therefore believed that the wages of sin is death (<a href='B:520 6:23'>Rom 6:23</a>) in the grave [sheol, where both righteous and wicked alike go], and not eternal torment in some other place.</p>


text:
<p> The womb shall forget him. The worm shall feed sweetly on him. He shall be no more remembered. Unrighteousness shall be broken as a tree-</p><p> GNB "Not even their mothers remember them now; they are eaten by worms and destroyed like fallen trees". As noted on :19, Job understood the judgment of the wicked as being eternal death, rather than conscious eternal torment. In <a href='B:220 17:14'>Job 17:14</a>, Job uses the same language about his own impending death. He believed that both he and the wicked were going to the same place in death; the difference was therefore in that Job would be resurrected, whereas the wicked would remain dead.</p><p>The language of judgment as a tree being broken down was relevant to the exiles, who were bidden see their hope in the revival of the cut down stump, shooting forth as the shoot who would be known as Messiah.</p>


text:
<p> He devours the barren who don’t bear. He shows no kindness to the widow-</p><p> Job appears unable to resist the temptation to dwell yet further upon the wickedness of the wicked; for this further comment upon them appears slightly out of context between verses 20 and 22. He begins to bring God into the equation, but then in this verse flips back to relishing how wicked are the wicked, and how they avoid judgment in this life. Such an attitude would be appropriate if indeed the wicked he had in view were the friends who were seated before him (see on :2).</p>


text:
<p> Yet God preserves the mighty by His power. He rises up who has no assurance of life-</p><p> The 'rising up' could mean that the wicked mighty people are not only preserved alive by God, but at times rise up from their temporal sufferings.</p>


text:
<p> God gives them security, and they rest in it. His eyes are on their ways-</p><p> The apparent security of the wicked is from God, somehow; but God's eyes [a reference to the Angels?] are on their ways, and therefore [by implication] they will come to judgment.</p>


text:
<p> They are exalted; yet a little while, and they are gone. Yes, they are brought low, they are taken out of the way as all others, and are cut off as the tops of the ears of grain-</p><p> This was how the Egyptians harvested corn, cutting off the entire ear of corn at the top of the stalk, and lends support to the impression that these things really happened "in the land of Uz" to a historical Job (see on <a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). The death of the wicked "as all others" implies to job that there must be a future point of justification for the righteous; for the wicked and the righteous die the same death, as other scripture also makes clear.</p>


text:
<p> If it isn’t so now, who will prove me a liar, and make my speech worth nothing?- Job has argued himself into an invincible position, in his own eyes. Indeed, all he says is true; but like the friends, truths are expressed but within a wrong context. Finally Job is to lay his hand upon his mouth in repentance (<a href='B:240 30:32'>Pro 30:32</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a>) and recognize he has not spoken rightly (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>), although he earlier demanded the friends lay their hands upon their mouths before the power of his arguments (<a href='B:220 21:5'>Job 21:5</a>). God confirms this by remarking that whoever has hope of overcoming Leviathan, His great beast (perhaps representing death and human mortality) is a liar to think he has such hope (<a href='B:220 41:9'>Job 41:9</a> s:w. "liar"). Job has forgotten his humanity, despite being 'right' in his arguments. This is the problem with possessing truth; it can lead us to wrongly forget our humanity and consider ourselves invincible.</p>


text:
<p> Then Bildad the Shuhite answered-</p><p> Here Bildad is merely using the previous arguments of Eliphaz in <a href='B:220 11:17'>Job 11:17</a>; <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>. This is another sign that dialogue has failed- when one side starts quoting the words and arguments of their own side, rather than engaging with the actual words of the other side. These dialogues are recorded to teach us how not to dialogue, and to see the extreme consequence of refusing to even want to understand each other.</p>


text:
<p> Dominion and fear are with Him. He makes peace in His high places-</p><p> Again, this is true, but it is a truth used in a wrong context. For Bildad's argument here is a repeat of what Eliphaz has said, that God is so great and high, considering even the Angels unclean, that He is really not that concerned with man, and Job's idea that God ought to be passionately concerned about him is therefore blasphemous.</p>


text:
<p> Can His armies be counted? On whom does His light not arise?-</p><p> The armies presumably refer to His Angels (as GNB). Job didn't disagree with this; he has just argued in <a href='B:220 24:14-17'>Job 24:14-17</a> that indeed God's light is everywhere, but sinners refuse to walk in it, and the presence of darkness or His light is no deterrent to sinners. But that argument is totally bypassed by Bildad here because he is set on repeating earlier arguments of his friend Eliphaz. Again, this is all a parade example of dialogue gone wrong.</p>


text:
<p> How then can man be just with God? Or how can he who is born of a woman be clean?-</p><p> Bildad isn't engaging with Job's arguments now, he is simply repeating the false statements of Eliphaz that the human condition is such that we can never be just with God. Bildad has forgotten the parameters imposed by God in the prologue- that in His eyes, Job was perfect. The final justification of Job with God, by grace, was an answer enough to this wrong view of human nature. See on :6.</p><p>The question "How can a man be just with God?" is the same question as 'How can a man ever be clean before a perfect God?', and is repeated in this form in <a href='B:220 9:30'>Job 9:30</a>; <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>; <a href='B:220 25:4'>Job 25:4</a>:&nbsp;&nbsp; The exiles had considered themselves cleansed whiter than snow because of their obedience to some parts of the Mosaic law (<a href='B:310 4:7'>Lam 4:7</a>), but failed to accept that such cleansing to be whiter than snow is only possible by doing what David did, and casting ourselves upon God's grace outside of justification by works (<a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a>). Job was to learn this lesson at the end. It was this offer which was made to Job just as it was to Judah under judgment (<a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Behold, even the moon has no brightness, and the stars are not pure in His sight-</p><p> It can be argued that the book of Job is a dialogue concerning evil and suffering, with three popular views being represented by the three friends. These views are examined and corrected by the personal history of Job, as well as by the epilogue and prologue to the book. Eliphaz seems to be representative of the idea that Job is being hit by supernaturally controlled evil- Eliphaz speaks of a force of darkness (<a href='B:220 22:10-11'>Job 22:10-11</a>) and sinful or faulty Angels living in an unclean Heaven (<a href='B:220 4:18'>Job 4:18</a>; <a href='B:220 15:15'>Job 15:15</a>). Yet the answer to all this is that the Satan figure is under God's control, all Job's misfortunes come from God and His Angels- one of whom may have been called 'the adversary' ('Satan')- are in fact perfectly obedient to Him and not disobedient. And finally, Eliphaz and the friends are rebuked for their various wrong understandings, with God declaring Himself supreme and ultimate sovereign. Likewise Bildad's view of Angels in <a href='B:220 25:5'>Job 25:5</a> "The stars are not pure in God's eyes" is corrected by God in <a href='B:220 38:7'>Job 38:7</a>, when He says that "the morning stars sang together and all the Sons of God shouted for joy".</p>


text:
<p> how much less man, who is a worm, the son of man, who is a worm!- Bildad is simply wrong to argue that because man is a worm, therefore he is of no particular value to God, seeing that his nature means that he can never be clean nor just before God (see on :4). This is not the case. The Lord Jesus had human nature but was clean and just before God, showing for all time the possibilities intrinsic within human nature. The same word is used of how He on the cross felt as a worm (<a href='B:230 22:6'>Psa 22:6</a>). It is the very message to the exiles: "Fear not, you worm Jacob, and you men of Israel: I will help you" (<a href='B:290 41:14'>Isa 41:14</a>). Though their sins were red as the crimson worm (s:w:), they would be made white as wool (<a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>). The lowness of man is no barrier to being clean before God, nor to being revived and used by Him.</p>


text:
<p> Then Job answered-</p><p> The speech of Job recorded in Job 26-31 is the longest in the book. The pattern of each of the three friends giving a speech and Job replying, spread over three speeches, appears to slightly break down in that Zophar doesn't give his third speech. We note that Bildad's final speech was very brief, and was really only quoting previous words from Eliphaz (Job 25). This could all create the intentional impression in the drama that the friends were running out of steam in their arguments. Job now makes a very long speech... but that is not his victory nor justification. That is only provided by God's appearance at the end, when Job repents of his words. It is usual for the genre of drama to play with audience expectation and dash it to make a point. That is what is happening here, with Bildad's final speech really a flop, and Zophar not giving the speech which the structure of the drama requires him to make. And we are also led to expect Job's final long speech to be his justification, seeing most of what he says is true in itself. But this too is a dashed expectation; for God appears and condemns them all, and then justifies Job by grace. But see on <a href='B:220 27:11'>Job 27:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p> How have you helped him who is without power! How have you saved the arm that has no strength!-</p><p> The reference may again be to Cain, who was cursed with the ground being "without power" to him (<a href='B:10 4:12'>Gen 4:12</a> s:w:), as an apostate Israel were (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:20'>Lev 26:20</a>). In this case Job would be saying that even the condemned in this life could be helped to revival. That was what he had learnt of God, and he expected men to act with a similar saving grace. Elihu confirms the argument by saying that although God has all power, He doesn't despise those who have none (<a href='B:220 36:5'>Job 36:5</a>). The exiles were also without "power" (<a href='B:310 1:6'>Lam 1:6</a> s:w:), represented by Daniel in just that position (s:w. <a href='B:340 10:8'>Dan 10:8</a>; <a href='B:340 10:16-17'>Dan 10:16-17</a>), with "no strength" (<a href='B:330 19:14'>Eze 19:14</a>), but would "renew their strength / power" (<a href='B:290 40:31'>Isa 40:31</a> s:w:). That revival would not be by human power but by God's spirit (<a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>), after the pattern of Job's revival. The Zion who had "no strength" would put on strength (s:w. <a href='B:290 51:9'>Isa 51:9</a>; <a href='B:290 52:1'>Isa 52:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p> How have you counselled him who has no wisdom, and plentifully declared sound knowledge!-</p><p> Job felt he had been deprived of everything, including wisdom and knowledge. But this was not because he was unwise; he is presented as a perfect man (<a href='B:220 1:1'>Job 1:1</a>). God is able to give and take wisdom, as is seen in the natural creation (<a href='B:220 39:17'>Job 39:17</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p> To whom have you uttered words? Whose spirit came forth from you?-</p><p> To ask this question is to imply that they were false prophets (<a href='B:110 22:24'>1Ki 22:24</a>). And God confirms this at the end, in saying that the friends had not spoken rightly about Him (<a href='B:220 42:7'>Job 42:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Those who are deceased tremble, those beneath the waters and all that live in them-</p><p> AV "Dead things are formed from under the waters". "Waters" are a clear figure for judgment. Job's great theme is that out of death, there can be revival and restoration. Death itself is no barrier to this revival. This was the lesson taught to the exiles by the vision of the dry, dead bones of Israel reviving. The LXX therefore speaks of "giants be born from under the water".</p>


text:
<p> Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering-</p><p> This is a deconstruction of Mot, the god of death; see on <a href='B:220 10:8'>Job 10:8</a>. He sees God is the real attacker, not, therefore, Mot or any other such being. Note too how <a href='B:40 16:31-35'>Num 16:31-35</a> describes God as swallowing up Korah, Dathan and Abiram into death in the earth – as if to deconstruct the idea that Mot did things like this. But in the context noted on :5, death is no barrier to God's work of revival and restoration.</p>


text:
<p> He stretches out the north over empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing-</p><p> This continues the ideas of :5,6; God can revive and restore from death, He can create matter, and can hang great weights upon nothing. Emptiness and deserted space can be used by Him. And this was the challenge of faith to the exiles. To believe that the empty space of the Jerusalem temple and the ruined land could again be stretched out by God as a tabernacle is stretched out, and revived (s:w. <a href='B:290 54:2'>Isa 54:2</a>); just as Job's ravaged body and life could be restored in a moment. Creation itself had been brought about from that which was "without form" (<a href='B:10 1:2'>Gen 1:2</a>, s:w. "empty space"), and so the new creation of Job and Israel would be likewise.</p>


text:
<p> He binds up the waters in His thick clouds, and the cloud is not burst under them-</p><p> Job likes to reason from the hints found within the natural creation, and Elihu and God Himself will speak to him in these very terms which he clearly so appreciated. Here, Job's point is that great weight can be carried by that which is nothing, and will not be broken by the great weight. This is in harmony with the preceding verses; Job believed that God would and could revive from nothing, from death itself.</p>


text:
<p> He encloses the face of His throne, and spreads His cloud upon it-</p><p> As so often in the drama of Job, truths are presented but without context. This is indeed true; but Job and the exiles had to learn that the cloud that came between God and themselves was that of human sin (<a href='B:290 44:22'>Isa 44:22</a>), even though God responded by bringing that cloud (<a href='B:220 36:32'>Job 36:32</a>). The years of exile were the day of cloud (<a href='B:330 34:12'>Eze 34:12</a>; <a href='B:310 3:44'>Lam 3:44</a>). But through that cloud, the light of God's saving glory was still visible (<a href='B:220 37:15'>Job 37:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p> He has defined a boundary on the surface of the waters, and to the confines of light and darkness-</p><p> GNB "He divided light from darkness by a circle drawn on the face of the sea". Job understands that it is God who sends the good and evil, the light and the darkness, into his life (<a href='B:220 30:26'>Job 30:26</a>). Significantly, he states his faith that God even marks out the boundary between light and darkness (<a href='B:220 26:10'>Job 26:10</a>) – a similar idea in essence to the reassurance of <a href='B:290 45:5'>Isa 45:5</a> that God creates both light and darkness. The ‘darkness’, however we experience and understand it, is framed and limited by God; it is not a power or being with independent existence outside the realm of God’s power. God confirms Job’s understanding later, when He says that it is He who can swaddle the sea [another figure for uncontrollable evil] in bands of darkness (<a href='B:220 38:9'>Job 38:9</a>) – as if to say that it is God who gives things like darkness and the sea their sinister appearance and perception by men; but He is in control of them, using them in His hand. See on <a href='B:220 38:10'>Job 38:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p> The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at His rebuke-</p><p> Job understood God to be in control in Heaven; he rejects the idea of a cosmic conflict going on ‘up there’ which the friends seem to allude to. More specifically, Job speaks of how God’s hand forms and can pierce the “crooked serpent” and smite any monster (<a href='B:220 26:11-14'>Job 26:11-14</a>). It’s as if Job is mocking the idea that God has let him go into the hands of the cosmic monsters which the friends believed in. For Job so often stresses that it is the “hand of God” which has brought His affliction (<a href='B:220 19:21'>Job 19:21</a>; <a href='B:220 23:2'>Job 23:2</a>). That Divine hand was far greater than any mythical ‘Satan’ figure. The theme of his speech in Job 28 is that Yahweh alone is to be feared throughout the entire cosmos. Nobody else – such as the ‘Satan’ figures alluded to by the friends – needed to be feared.</p>


text:
<p> He stirs up the sea with His power, and by His understanding He strikes through Rahab-</p><p> Rahab is a term used for Babylon and so this becomes all the more relevant to the restoration context. "The sea" was understood by the contemporary people to be awfully mysterious, and a radical power in its own right. Just as Babylon and the forces arraigned against Job seemed invincible and a law to themselves. Just as we may consider we are in the hands of forces which are mysterious and too great for us to grapple with. But Job's simple faith was that God was in total control of all those things. "He stirs up the sea..." is quoted in <a href='B:290 51:15'>Isa 51:15</a> of God's power available for the exiles against Babylon.</p>


text:
<p> By His Spirit the heavens are garnished. His hand has pierced the swift serpent-</p><p> See on :11. Here the hand and Spirit of God are equated- both are Angelic phrases, and thus provides further evidence that the Angels actually performed the creation. Many passages clearly identify God’s spirit with His power. In order to create the earth, “the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light” (<a href='B:10 1:2-3'>Gen 1:2-3</a>). God’s spirit was the power by which all things, e.g. light, were made. “By His spirit He has created the heavens; His hand has formed the crooked serpent” (<a href='B:220 26:13'>Job 26:13</a>). A comparison of <a href='B:470 12:28'>Mat 12:28</a> and <a href='B:490 11:20'>Luk 11:20</a> shows that “the finger of God” and “the spirit of God” are parallel - God in action is His spirit. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth” (<a href='B:230 33:6'>Psa 33:6</a>).</p><p>Thus Job associates God's Spirit with His hand, which is Satan's hand. It seems far more fitting that this hand and spirit should be Angelic rather than human. Again, it was Angelic work that formed the Heavens. Job recognized that his trials came from the hand of God, but knew that His hand would not kill him- " with Thy strong hand Thou opposest Thyself against me... howbeit He will not stretch out His hand to (bring me to) the grave" (<a href='B:220 30:21'>Job 30:21</a>; <a href='B:220 30:24'>Job 30:24</a>). This was exactly the brief given to satan- to try Job, but "preserve his life". The hand of God creating evil (<a href='B:220 2:10-11'>Job 2:10-11</a>) must surely refer to God's " Angels of evil" (<a href='B:230 78:49'>Psa 78:49</a>) rather than to man- Cyrus had to be taught that no one except God (including human satans!) created evil (<a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>).</p>


text:
<p> Behold, these are but the outskirts of His ways. How small a whisper do we hear of Him! But the thunder of His power who can understand?- There are only some things which God makes known to us about Himself; we do not have the total truth about God, we see but parts of His ways and hear only a little portion of Him (<a href='B:220 26:14'>Job 26:14</a>). Our perception and definition of “the truth” needs to bear this in mind. Absolute truth claims aren’t simply ignorant, they lead to all manner of relationship breakdown, arrogance and deformation of spirituality both in ourselves and others. See on <a href='B:520 1:19'>Rom 1:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p> Job again took up his parable and said-</p><p> In what sense is Job's pouring out of his very personal reflections about his situation "a parable"? I suggest the answer is that we are intended to understand his situation as parabolic or representative of other situations; particularly that with the exiles in Babylon, who would also be led to restoration if they followed Job's path.</p>


text:
<p> As God lives, who has taken away my right-</p><p> Job is specifically criticized by Elihu for saying this (<a href='B:220 34:5'>Job 34:5</a> s:w:). I have suggested that Elihu was not always specifically reflecting God's viewpoints, but instead is a literary device within the drama who serves to summarize the arguments so far delivered. "Right" is literally "judgment". Job has lamented that he sought in vain for God to meet him in judgment. But the very same phrase is used of how by grace God would 'take away Israel's judgments' in no longer condemning them (<a href='B:430 3:15'>Zep 3:15</a>). It was therefore a good thing that God did not meet Job in judgment; and by grace He was to justify Job and take away his judgment of condemnation.</p><p>The Almighty, who has made my soul bitter-</p><p> The phrase used by Hezekiah, another possible fulfilment of the suffering servant based upon Job (<a href='B:290 38:17'>Isa 38:17</a>).</p>


text:
<p> For the length of my life is still in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils-</p><p> This is obviously referring to the record of God's creation of Adam in <a href='B:10 2:7'>Gen 2:7</a>. See on <a href='B:220 10:9'>Job 10:9</a>; <a href='B:220 9:17'>Job 9:17</a>. Job may be wrongly suggesting he is merely suffering because he is a son of Adam, whilst personally innocent. Although in Job's case he did need to repent, his situation pointed forward to that of the Lord Jesus, the suffering servant based upon Job who was the second Adam.</p>


text:
<p> surely my lips shall not speak unrighteousness, neither shall my tongue utter deceit-</p><p> Job was bending all his self will to avoid not sinning with his lips, as he is initially commended for doing (<a href='B:220 2:10'>Job 2:10</a>). But finally he is taught that for all that steel willed self control, he must lay his hand upon his mouth and realize he has not spoken rightly (<a href='B:220 40:4'>Job 40:4</a>). He may have controlled his specific words, but the general thrust of his understanding had been so badly wrong.</p>


text:
<p> Far be it from me that I should justify you. Until I die I will not put away my integrity from me-</p><p> The friends had specifically accused Job of things he had never done (e.g. <a href='B:220 22:5-9'>Job 22:5-9</a>). He would not justify them by saying they had been right after all; he is a great example of not taking false guilt. For in such situations, people often break down and accept guilt for what they never actually did. He held on to God's view of him which had been made clear in the prologue- that he was "perfect", of integrity, and he would not be made to feel as if that was not the case. What he had to learn was that he was after all a sinful human and that high estimation of him had been the result of imputed righteousness by grace. And he had to be taught that in God's final appearance to him.</p>


text:
<p> I hold fast to my righteousness, and will not let it go-</p><p> God had stated in <a href='B:220 2:3'>Job 2:3</a> that Job held fast (s:w:) to his integrity. And here Job uses this word about himself. He will not "curse God, and die". Again we have the impression that he had been present at these discussions between the Satan and God; and the view of the Satan was in fact the view now of the friends, who effectively acted as the Satan figure who had influenced their thinking. His argument against the friends, that he did maintain his integrity still, was effectively arguing back against this position of the Satan.</p><p>"Hold fast" is the same word as in <a href='B:290 56:2'>Isa 56:2</a>: "And the son of man who holds it fast". To "hold fast" means to keep covenant (<a href='B:140 7:22'>2Ch 7:22</a>). The "it" the exiles were to hold fast to was God's righteousness and not their own (<a href='B:290 56:1'>Isa 56:1</a>). But they refused to do so because like Job, they held fast (s:w:) to their own righteousness (s:w. <a href='B:220 27:6'>Job 27:6</a>).</p><p>My heart shall not reproach me so long as I live-</p><p> Paul was like Job, determined to "have always a conscience void of offence, both toward God and toward man" (<a href='B:510 24:16'>Act 24:16</a>); but later he learnt the lesson of Job, and realized that although his conscience doesn't condemn him, this is not to say he is ultimately right before God (<a href='B:530 4:4'>1Co 4:4</a>). For the final appearance of God convicted Job of sin, of the fact that his status as "perfect" before God was by imputed righteousness through grace; and that his spotless personal conscience was not therefore the ultimate decider of his acceptability before God. Just as we must learn that at the last day, we will be judged by God's word and our conscience will not as it were jump out of us and judge us.</p><p>Job realized his sinfulness, and yet at the same time he was in a quandary over whether he really had sinned. In <a href='B:220 27:6'>Job 27:6</a> he even feels that his heart does not reproach him over any of the days he has ever lived (RV). This is such an accurate caricature of so many Christian consciences, of so much of our self-examination, both individually and collectively. We of course have to admit that we are sinners, riddled with weakness in so many ways; and of course we do admit this. And yet there is a quandary over whether we really are big time sinners. We feel ourselves to be little sinners, whatever we may theoretically admit. And as such, we fail to appreciate the grace of God's salvation, and therefore we fail to dynamically respond to this as we should do, and thereby our community and our own lives are characterized by the all too evident apathy with which they are; there is so little of the real flame, the fire of true spirituality, which there might be. And dear Job, like us, for all his good works, for all his being such a truly and really nice guy and brother, through and through... he had to be brought down to his knees: "I am vile... I know (now, by implication) that thou canst do everything, and that no thought can be withholden from thee... therefore have I uttered that I understood thee; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not".</p>


