Part 10: God's Replies

As has been shown earlier, originally the debates conclude with Job’s monologue, in which he reassert his innocence and once again requests an elucidation by God. This answer is set out in chapters 38 to 41. These comprise two speeches, which God delivers from the Whirlwind [סערה]. Greenstein points out that here God “assumes a hostile persona – that of the storm god.”¹ He goes on to explain that, in Middle-Eastern mythology, the Storm God is a warrior. Undoubtedly, the retorts are both hostile and condescending.

In the first (comprising caps. 38 and 39), God refers to his own magnitude. He tells Job that, as Job was not present when the earth was created, he is not in a position to criticise or raise queries respecting a divine plan of which he has no knowledge.²

Job’s replies thereto is muted. He says: “Lacking respect, how can I answer? My hand I place over my mouth. I have spoken once and I will not repeat; Twice – and I will (speak) no more” [40:4-5].³ Here Job does not concede his having received an answer to his complaint. He avers that he has not doubted God’s greatness, but that the theodicy issue has not been resolved.

God, thereupon, speaks once again [caps. 40:6 to 41]. This second reply differs from the imagery of the previous one. Whilst His first reply asserted His generic greatness, He now refers to two wonders, namely the ‘behemoth’ and the ‘leviathan’, and challenges Job to control them. God displays his anger at Job words, asking him: “Wilt thou disavow my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayst be right? Has thou an arm like God?”[40:9]. However, as in his first speech, God does not explain why innocent people, like Job, suffer.

Job’s reply thereto does, once again, falls short of conceding God’s justice. In his own words: “As a hearing by ear I have heard you, and now my eye has seen you. That is why I am fed up. I take pity on ‘dust and ashes’!” [42:5-6]. Greenstein tells us: “Job understands the deity to be exactly as he had feared: a purveyor of power who cares little for people. Parodying the divine discourse through mimicry, Job expresses disdain toward the deity and pity toward humankind.”⁴ Job has done so earlier⁵ and his reply to God’s second speech does not depart from his original bitter and disillusioned stand.

It should by now be clear that Job does not resolve the theodicy issue. The inadequacy of the comrades’ arguments is pointed out in chapter 32:3, discussed above. Neither God’s replies nor Elihu’s speeches provide an adequate answer.

Nonetheless, chapters 38 to 42:1-5 give rise to a number of intriguing issues. First, the vocabulary and the imagery of God’s Replies from the Whirlwind differ from those of the poet who composed the setting and the debates. At the same time, the composer of the Replies has read the earlier parts of the book. For instance, he refers to the same heavenly constellations as Job.⁶ Further, he replies to Job’s complaints although he does not cite them verbatim.

Are these replies contemporaneous with the rest of the books or were they written later on? Passages of God’s Replies appear in the Qumran Scroll.⁷ This establishes that they formed part of Job as circulated in the first century BCE. It is true that scraps of the Hebrew text on this point were not discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls. The relevant chapters are, however, set out in the Late Targum⁸ and in the LXX.

Thus, the available sources do not provide a clear conclusion as to the date of God’s Replies. In view of the concluding sentence of chapter 31, discussed above, it seems likely that the original version of Job ended with Job’s seminal, final, monologue. However, a book with such a conclusion would have been unacceptable to the Pharisee theology which developed after the destruction of Jerusalem in 71 CE. The book survived and was included in the MT due to the addition of God’s Replies from the Whirlwind.

The second issue which arises as regards chapters 38 to 42:1-6 is whether they were composed before or after Elihu’s speeches (viz. caps 32 – 37). The point is of considerable difficulty. Both tracts postulate a divine order, which is beyond the scope of mankind’s comprehension. Circumstantial evidence suggests that Elihu’s speeches were added after the debate but prior to God’s replies. To start with, Elihu’s discourse does not add much to Job, as comprising the setting, the debates and God’s Replies. It simply underscores or clarifies the notion that God’s ways are just and beyond mankind’s grasp.

In addition, neither God’s Replies nor the epilogue refer directly or indirectly to Elihu’s words. If the author of the Replies had studied Elihu’s analysis, his easiest way would have been to add a brief indication of God’s agreement thereto.

Finally, Elihu’s speeches and God’s Replies from the Whirlwind do not cross refer. This, too, indicates that the respective authors were unfamiliar with the writings of each other.

The tentative conclusion, then, is that both Elihu and the composer of God’s Replies felt the need to retort to Job’s bitter complaint and his negative assessment of divine justice. They worked independently and it is only natural that the editor of the book included both God’s Reply after Elihu’s discourse. He gave God the last word.

The tentative conclusion prescribed by this analysis is that an original version of Job, ending with chapter thirty one plus the epilogue, was ‘censored’ by later compilers so as to save an apostate book, expressed in sublime poetry, from suppression or destruction.