A. Story LineThe basic story line is straightforward. Job was a morally upstanding individual. He had considerable wealth and a fine family. When the divine council met in heaven God expressed his pride in Job, but he was challenged by one called the adversary, otherwise known as the satan.7 YHWH said to the satan, "From where have you come?" The satan answered YHWH, "From going here and there on the earth, and from walking up and down on it." 8 YHWH said to the satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears Elohim and turns away from evil?" 9 Then the satan answered YHWH, "Does Job fear Elohim for nothing?" (1:7-9)
The satan figure is the official heavenly "gadfly" whose task is to challenge Yahweh's relationship with humankind. In this case the satan is playing "devil's advocate" by giving Yahweh a counter-explanation of Job's goodness. He claims it was just a pattern of behavior calculated to get the best treatment from God.
The adversary challenged God to take everything away from Job in order to see what his reaction would be. Yahweh first gave the adversary permission to remove all of Job's wealth and family and later his physical health. Job was reduced to being a suffering outcast. Three friends appeared at his side to give him counsel: Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. In conversation with Job they attempted to make sense out of his plight.
But neither Job nor his friends resolved the conundrum of Job's suffering. Elihu, another counselor-friend appeared, but did not seem to further the argument. Finally, Yahweh came to Job in a terrifying theophany and commanded Job's attention. He never answered Job's questions directly. Instead, he questioned Job in a most intimidating way, seemingly belittling Job because he presumed to question the wisdom of God, who, after all, created the world. But in the end he vindicated Job. Yahweh reprimanded Job's friends and requited Job with a new family and even greater wealth. The story line is relatively simple. The theological argument is not necessarily so.
|