Job 42:1-6 — Did Job “Repent”?

October 14, 2011

Something climatic happens in Job 42:1-6 when Job responds to Yahweh’s second speech.

Some believe that Job is unmoved.  He has heard God and is not convinced. He maintains his defiant stance since God has not answered his questions. This is a rather recent critical position taken by several in the Academy (cf. Curtis, JBL [1979] 497-511).

Some believe Job is penitent. Job experiences a conversion. He acknowledges his sin–at least the sin of arrogance or the sin of justifying himself and putting God in the wrong–and submits to God. This is a rather traditional position (cf. Newell, WTJ [1984] 298-316]).

Others, a minority report, suggest that both of these misread Job.  I accept this minority report and hope to explain a version of it in this post.

Yahweh’s first speech silenced Job (Job 40:4-5). He confessed his finitude (“I am of small account”) and promised silence (“I lay my hand on my mouth”). Yet, Job does not seem content; he does not embrace God in doxology. He simply gives up his complaint (“I will proceed no further” ), but he does not appear satisfied. There is, at least, no indication of that. It is as if Job is saying, “I hear you and I recognize your creative wisdom and power, but….” And the “but” is left unexpressed.

But Yahweh expresses it. Job still wonders about the reign of evil in the world. Has God lost control? Where is the justice of God? Or, has God turned toward evil himself? Yahweh’s second speech addresses these questions. Yahweh says, “I am sovereign over evil and chaos.”

Job’s response to the second speech comes in two parts. First, Job praises Yahweh (42:2-3). Second, Job embraces Yahweh’s presence (42:4-6).

Job praises Yahweh (42:2-3). Job acknowledges that God is Almighty and that his every purpose will be accomplished. Interestingly, “purpose” is the same term Job used in 21:27 when he was talking the divine “schemes” against him. Job recognizes that he cannot disrupt God’s plans, purposes, or intent, even if he does not like them.

Job responds to Yahweh’s question, “Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?” (cf. 42:3; 38:2). Job doxologically confesses that God’s purposes are “too wonderful” for him. Job uses the same term present in Psalm 139:6,14; it is a term Job himself had previously used in a doxological context in Job 9:10. He confesses God’s wondrous acts as well as his ignorance of their meaning and significance. Job knows he does not understand God. He has confessed this earlier as well (9:11; 12:13; 23:8′ 26:12).

So, what is new? Nothing here is new. It is rather a renewed confession, a remembrance of what Job already knew and confessed.  What is new is what comes next.

Job embraces Yahweh’s presence (42:4-6). Again, Job quotes Yahweh (cf. 42:4; 38:3; and, interestingly, both of these quotations of Yahweh go back to Yahweh’s first speech). In this second response, Job is responding to both speeches. His quotation is an acknowledgement that he cannot answer Yahweh’s questions. Job knows his limitations. But then the climactic confession appears: “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes see you” (42:5).

This is the turning point. Here Job confesses his encounter with Yahweh.  Previously, Job had only heard of Yahweh or had only listened to Yahweh through the various ways in which Yahweh spoke to the patriarchs. Now something is different; Job has experienced something new. Now, Job has “seen” God.

We might take the verb “see” in a literal sense, that is, he saw God in the whirlwind. He saw the theophany.  Thus, Job’s hope was fulfilled. He had hoped to see God in the flesh again (19:26), and he did.  I think that is at least true, but it is more than that.  ”See” is also a metaphor for experience. Job has experienced Yahweh.  It is a theophanic encounter with or experience of God.

I have often referred to this as a “sanctuary” experience.  It is what the Psalmist in Psalm 73 experienced. He questioned God until he entered the sanctuary of God (73:16-17). It is what Habakkuk experienced. He questioned God until God appeared to him (expressed in the theophanic hymn of Habakkuk 3). It is the “nevertheless” of Psalm 13:5.  We cry “how long?”, but in our experience of God we “nevertheless” trust in God’s gracious purposes.

What happened in these instances is occasioned by the oppressive nature of the chaos or evil which burdened believers. They expressed that burden in lament. They cried, “how long?” or “why?” or “where are you?” Their questions were legitimate and faithful. This is also true of Job’s laments. But God showed up; he came to these lamenters. And they changed. This did not deligitimze their lament. Rather, it moved their lament to praise. They moved from lament to comfort. This is what happens to Job.

Job changes. Job, according to most English translations, repents. But repent is too strong for this word and leaves a false impression.  This is not the normal Hebrew term for “repentance” in the sense of a sorrow for sin or a turning away from sin.  Rather, this verb (nhm) fundamentally means a change of mind. Job changed his mind, just as God is depicted as changing his mind within the narrative of Scripture (cf.Exodus 32:12; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; 1 Chronicles 21:15). There is nothing inherent in the word that denotes a change from evil to good, a kind of repentance as we normally think of the English term.

Job changed his mind, but from what to what?  I think the intertextual cue is how this Hebrew root is used in Job itself. The friends came to “comfort” Job (2:11); Job hopes that his bed would “comfort” him (7:13); Job calls his friends miserable “comforters” (16:2); Job questions whether his friends can “comfort” him (21:34); Job himself was one who “comforts mourners” (29:25); and in the Epilogue Job is “comforted” by his friends and family (42:11). Everywhere this root is used in Job, it always means “comfort” unless Job 42:6 is the exception.

So, why do translaters call it “repent” here? They believe that Job has somehow sinned in his addresses to God in the dialogue. Job must repent if there is to be resolution.  But if we do not assume that Job has sinned, then we might simply recognize that Job is comforted in this text.

However, Job’s language before he acknowledges his “change of mind” is problematic. The verb “I despise” has no object in Hebrew.  What does Job despise? What does he reject?   Job had previously used the term in how he had not “rejected the cause” of his servants (31:13), and how God had despised the work of his hands (10:3), and how Job had loathed his own life (9:21; cf. also 7:16). But without an object in 42:6 it is difficult to determine what Job despises/rejects except by context.

If we understand that Job has changed his mind, particularly that he has been comforted, perhaps what he now does is “despise” his case (or perhaps reject his lament). He gives up his lawsuit against God (“retract,” NASB). He will not press charges. Or, perhaps it is language that voices humility such as “I melt away” (NEB). I don’t think Job is recanting everything he said (as the NLT translates it) but is rather “letting go” of the lawsuit, “letting go” of lament, or humbling himself before God (“I am little/I melt [before you]“). He is letting go of whatever resentment (psychological) or legal proceedings (forensic) he had against God.He will no longer lament; he will no longer mourn.

Job’s encounter with God comforted him. Giving up his lawsuit or humbling himself before the divine theophany, Job is “comforted over [my] dust and ashes.” Perhaps “dust and ashes” is a metaphor for his mourning (a possible meaning of 30:19) or  ”dust and ashes” is a metaphor for the finitude of humanity who returns to dust and ashes in death (cf. Gen. 18:27). Either way, Job is consoled in his mortal humanity or in his mourning. Indeed, we may read Job 42:6 as Job’s reject and change of mind about mourning–he will now leave the place of mourning he has occupied since 2:11 and return to life (cf. Patrick, VT [1976], 369-371).

Living in a chaotic world, Job’s finitude and ignorance generated unanswered questions, nagging doubts, and bewildering situations. His encounter with Yahweh changed him. Yahweh’s theophany spoke about sovereignty, wisdom, and care which generated peace, praise. and comfort. Job was comforted despite unanswered questions because the presence of  Yahweh assured him. Job turned from mourning to comfort. Job’s lament moved to praise.

1 Comment | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Yesterday–A Testimony

May 1, 2009

Yesterday I drove to Ellijay, Georgia–the city of my wife’s birth, upbringing, marriage, death and burial. She died around 2:00am on April 30, 1980 while convalescing in her parent’s home from back surgery twenty days before.

Yesterday I drove to her graveside alone. I had not been there alone in some years, perhaps decades. It was time for me to sit with her, pray, reflect, and meditate.

When I arrived, I sat my portable chair near her grave.  Praying, I began journaling as my counselor suggested.  Journaling is often difficult for me, but this time I wrote for almost two hours.

The cemetery is a small one; it is nestled in a small depression with a country white Methodist church building rising above it. The church sits on Highway 52 which rides a blue ridge in north Georgia.  One road makes a short circle within the graveyard–so short that you have to keep your hand turning the wheels as the car moves among the gravestones. The graves are well-kept. It is a serene atmosphere as the cemetery is surrounded by trees and one large fir tree rises near the center.  All of this in sight of the surrounding ridges of the north Georgia mountains. It is a calm, peaceful setting.

Sheila was the first to be buried outside of the circle but today she is accompanied by aunts and uncles on her north and south side.  As yet she has no immediate family lying beside her.

When I sat down, the clouds were ominous. They were dark and brooding.  I anticipated rain and the forecast called for it. I wondered whether I would have to sit in the car and journal.  As I began journaling I wrote that the dark clouds were a metaphor for how I felt sitting next to her. Sadness filled my soul and tears flowed.

As I was writing and thinking about that metaphor–feeling my way through it, the sky changed. The clouds were still there, but a hole had opened up among them. The hole was situated directly above the cemetery and the sun lit Sheila’s grave. It was as if the whole cemetery was engulfed by the blue sky and its bright sun.  At the same time I felt a gentle, cool breeze flowing over me–a calm wind, a peaceful breath.

“God,” I wrote, “is this for me?”

The dark clouds began moving to the northeast, but the blue sky stayed directly over head. The sun was so bright at times that I could barely write. I needed sunglasses but had none. There were still plenty of clouds, but not over Sheila’s grave. The bright sunlight continued unabated.

“God,” I wrote, “are you telling me something?”

As I was driving down Highway 52 to turn into the parking lot of the Methodist church, I noticed how dark the clouds were and I thought to myself “how fitting.” It was how I always anticipated coming here–sad, depressing, upsetting. Consequently, I tended to avoid the grave.

“God,” I wrote, “are you telling me my life has been dark too long? that it is time to see the light?”

The trees whistled with a pleasant wind. The sun dispelled the darkness. The warmth of the sun and refreshing breeze renewed me. The sun’s warmth sent my heart to God’s love and the breeze felt like the breath (Spirit) of God. My father was blowing fresh grace on me–a fresh joy in that painful place with such painful memories.

“God,” I wrote, “you are here now–you are with me. There is peace. The dark clouds are moving away.”

I know not whether you believe in such experiences. But that was mine yesterday. It was as real to me as typing this sentence.  I’ve had them before and this one was simply amazing, wondrous and beautiful.

Is my grieving over?  I doubt it. But I think it reached a new stage yesterday. It was a moment of grace and joy when all I expected was fear and sadness.

“Is this God’s grace?” I wrote with tear-filled eyes.  Yes, indeed, it was.  Thank you, God.

I then visited with Sheila’s parents for a couple of hours. They are godly, good folk. They still love me and I love them.

15 Comments | Personal | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Christian Experience: Alexander Campbell and the Baptists

February 23, 2009

Alexander Campbell’s relationship with the Baptists is rather complicated.  His Brush Run congregation petitioned for membership Redstone Baptist Association in 1815 and then was admitted in 1816.  In 1823 Alexander Campbell, along with thirty members from the Brush Run church, planted a new congregation in Wellsburg, Virginia. That congregation joined the Mahoning Baptist Association in 1824.  The Redstone Association effectively removed the Brush Run church from their rolls in the years 1824-1826 due to rising tensions.  In 1829 the Beaver Association anathematized the Reformers and six other Baptist Associations did the same in 1830.  These anathemas split the Baptist church in Kentucky. Between 1829-1831 Baptists, in Kentucky alone, lost 9,580 members to the Reformers and half their churches.

The primary tension between the Reformers and the Baptists was the relationship between faith, baptism and “christian experience.”  The 1830 Redstone Association “resolved” that the “exclusion” of the Reformers “was on account of being erroneous doctrine [sic], maintaining, namely…that faith in Christ is only a belief of historical facts…rejecting and deriding what is commonly called christian experience…there is no operation of the Spirit on hearts of men…”  (Minutes of the Redstone Baptist Association, September 3-5, 1830, p. 5).

Alexander Campbell attempted to maintain fellowship with the Virginia Baptists despite the rejection of the Kentucky Baptists. He sought dialogue with leading Baptist ministers such as Robert B. Semple and Andrew Broaddus. But Campbell’s “Extra” on the baptism for the remission of sins in July 1830 was a major breaking point as Broaddus believed this was at odds with “christian experience.”  In 1832 he wrote a friend: “To his view of baptism, as the only medium of actual pardon, justificatio, sanctification, reconciliation, adoption and salvation from the guilt and power of sin–and to his view of divine influence as consisting merely in the moral influence of the word, I would not consent” (Broaddus, Memoirs, 289-90). 

Eventually, the Dover Association of Virginia excluded the Reformers in 1832 based on resolutions drawn up in December 1830 (e.g., seventy-two members were dismissed from the First Baptist Church of Richmond, Virginia). Campbell himself commented that the “whole matter” of the Dover resolutions “is the denial of their mystic influences of the Holy Spirit, and immersion for the remission of sins” (Millennial Harbinger, 1831, 78). Thus, both the Baptists and the Disciples (Campbell) recognized that the theologial differences between them were basically two (though there were other tensions, of course):  the design of immersion and the work of the Holy Spirit in conversion. 

This, of course, remained the primary tension between the Stone-Campbell Movement and the Baptists throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.   Many debates ensued on those two topics (e.g., the Nashville Debate between Moody and James A. Harding as well as the Hardeman-Bogard Debate, and many, many others). I have suggested in another presentation that reproachment is possible (“Seeking Consensus: A “Kinder, Gentler” Campbellite Baptismal Theology“) and especially so in the light of recent discussions among the Baptists themselves (especially Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ).  Understanding the origins of our differences, their nature ,and how they were originally polarized is an important first step in pursuing dialogue today. 

For those interested my article Baptism, Faith and Christian Experience: Baptists and Disciples Part Company discusses the history of this separation of Baptists and Disciples in some detail and explores the theological tension between them on the nature, means and content of “christian experience” in relation to salvation.  The article first appeared as “Baptism, Faith and Christian Experience: Baptists and Disciples Part Company” in Evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell Movement, edited by William Baker (Downer’s Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2002). It now appears on my Academic page.

16 Comments | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 966 other followers

%d bloggers like this: