This book, like many others in the Old Testament, got its name from the central character in it rather than from its writer. While it is possible that Job may have written it, there is no concrete evidence that he did.
"Job"means "hated"or "the much persecuted."Perhaps "Job"was a nickname his friends gave him during his suffering. Job is the title of the book in the Hebrew, Greek (Septuagint), Latin (Vulgate), and English Bibles.
Concerning the time the events recorded took place there have been many views ranging from the patriarchal age of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (beginning about 2100 B.C.) to the sixth century B.C.
Internal evidence suggests that Job lived in the patriarchal period. The length of his life (either 140 or about 210 years; 42:16) is similar to that of Terah (205 years), Abraham (175 years), Isaac (180 years), and Jacob (147 years). The writer measured Job's wealth in terms of his livestock. This is how Moses evaluated the wealth of Abraham and Jacob (1:3; 42:12; cf. Gen. 12:16; 13:2; 30:43; 32:5). The Sabeans and Chaldeans (1:15, 17) were nomads during the patriarchal period but not later. Job was the priest of his family (1:5) a condition that became less common when nations in the Near East developed more organization. Names of people and places in the book were also common in the patriarchal age (e.g., Sheba, Tima, Eliphaz, Uz, Job). Genesis, the Mari documents, and the Egyptian Execration texts, all of which refer to life in the Near East at this time, also refer to these names.
"The idea that Job has an Edomite background is as old as the LXX, which equates Job with Jobab, king of Edom (Gn. 36:33)."1
"Most recent [liberal] writers are agreed that in its original form the book was of post-exilic origin, and the secondary parts of later composition."2
Internal evidence, however, has led many careful students of the book to conclude that it was the work of one person. Perhaps someone else added a few minor touches later under divine inspiration (e.g., 42:16-17). If Job lived in the patriarchal period, as the evidence seems to suggest, what clues are there that someone did not write it then or very soon afterwards? The detailed recounting of the conversations that took place certainly suggests a composition date fairly close to that of the actual events. That has been the position of Jewish and Christian scholars until destructive criticism became popular in the last few centuries. Critics point to the fact that oral tradition was very exact in the ancient world and that people could have transmitted Job's story by mouth for generations and retained its purity. With the Holy Spirit's superintending work it could have been, but there is no evidence that this is what happened. Literacy was widespread in the ancient world at this time.3Critics further point out that in the process of social evolution composition of a work such as this book was more typical at a date much later than the patriarchal period. Yet again there is no evidence that someone wrote it later. The simpler explanation is that someone wrote it early. Since there is no proof that someone wrote it later, most conservative scholars have continued to prefer the traditional early date of composition theory.
The book does not identify its writer. Furthermore the ancient Hebrews could not agree on who wrote it. Consequently many different scholars have made guesses as to who the writer was.
From the patriarchal period Job himself is the favored candidate, though some scholars have nominated Elihu. These men seem to be the most likely of the chief characters to have preserved the record of Job's trials. There are many examples of ancient extra-biblical writings in which the author spoke of himself in the third person, so we need not eliminate Job on that ground. The book reads as though an eyewitness of the events recorded wrote it.
Jewish tradition favored Moses as the writer. Moses recorded other events during the patriarchal period in Genesis, he was familiar with desert life, and he had enough ability to write such a book as this one.
Solomon has supporters mainly because he composed other poetic biblical literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon). Moreover there are some similarities between Job and Proverbs such as the relationship between fearing God and being wise.
Other scholars have suggested later writers including Hezekiah, Isaiah, and Ezra.
Of course, the writer may have been none of these individuals. No one knows for sure who wrote Job. I tend to prefer a contemporary of Job or Job himself because of the antiquity of this view and the fact that no one has proved it unsatisfactory.
It is also difficult to determine how much time the events narrated in the book cover.
The first chapter tells about Job's life before his trial, and the last chapter reveals what happened after it until Job's death. The chapters in between deal with a relatively short period in Job's long life. How long was this period?
We have a few clues. Job referred to months when he spoke of his sufferings (7:3; 29:2). In view of Job's physical symptoms his ailments seem to have bothered him for several months at least. He may have suffered for years. However, Job said the same people who had respected him previously had come to reject and avoid him. He implied that his rejection was fairly recent.
The main part of the book contains dialogue that took place between a few individuals. There is no indication in the text that extended periods of time interrupted Job's sojourn at the city dump. It seems to have continued for a few days at the most, though the conversations may have stopped and then restarted. The writer may have telescoped the events to keep the narrative flowing smoothly. It appears that the scope of the main action at the city dump lasted no longer than a few days or possibly weeks.
Job is primarily a combination of at least three literary types: lawsuit,4lament,5and controversy dialogue.6The larger category is wisdom literature. However there are so many different types of literature in this book that many writers despair of assigning one type as the dominant one.
"The book of Job defies all efforts to establish its literary genre. While it has been viewed as an epic,7a tragedy,8and a parable,9upon close analysis it is none of these even though it exhibits properties belonging to each of them. As Robert Gordis observes, the author of Job has created his own literary genre.10The book is didactic in the sense that the author seeks to teach religious truth, a task which he executes primarily by means of lyrical poetry expressive of deep emotions."11
"The book of Job is an astonishing mixture of almost every kind of literature to be found in the Old Testament. Many individual pieces can be isolated and identified as proverbs, riddles, hymns, laments, curses, lyrical nature poems."12
"One should think of this aspect of interpretation [i.e., genre] as being like the Olympics, a grand occasion made up of a variety of sports. Though it is all sport, each game is played by its own rules and has its own expectations about how to play the game. The variety of literature is the same way. It all has a message, but it conveys that message in a variety of ways and with a variety of expectations. To try to play basketball with soccer's rules will never work, though both use a ball and require foot speed. Or think of musical instruments, they all make music, but in different ways with different sounds. One cannot play the violin like a piano or drums; nor should one expect a violin to sound like either a piano or the kettledrum! In the same way, to read the poetry of the Psalms like a historical book is to miss the emotional and pictorial impact of the message, though both genres convey reality about people's experience with God."13
What this book is all about has been the subject of considerable debate. Many people think God gave it to us to provide His answer to the age-old problem of suffering. In particular, many believe it is in the Bible to help us understand why good people suffer. This is undoubtedly one of the purposes of the book and one that I want to develop at some length. However, I think another purpose is more foundational than this one.
Other people have focused on the great questions Job voiced in the book. During his suffering, when God allowed Satan to knock all the props that support human earthly existence out from under him, Job got down to the most basic needs that people face. He made many profound observations about life. He articulated the most fundamental needs that human beings have. He voiced the greatest philosophical questions about life. These questions are an extremely important contribution of the book and one that I plan to give some attention. Nevertheless I think God has inspired and preserved the message of the Book of Job primarily for another reason.
I believe He did so because this book proves that the basic relationship that God has established with people does not rest on retribution but on grace. This is the message statement. Let me explain it.
In our study of the Old Testament historical books I have pointed out that God blesses people for two reasons. These are His sovereign choice to bless and people's response of trust and obedience to Him.
Because we cannot control God's sovereign choice to bless some people more than others we tend to forget that. We tend to focus on what we can control to some extent, namely our securing His blessing by trusting and obeying Him. This is understandable and legitimate, but it leads to a potential problem. The problem is that we may conclude that we can control God. Since God blesses those who trust and obey Him and He curses those who do not, we may conclude that if we trust and obey God, He owes us blessing.
This conclusion assumes that the basis of God's relationship with people is retribution. If I am good, God will reward me with blessing in some form, but if I am bad, He will punish me somehow. While this is normally the way God deals with human beings it is not always His method. Consequently there must be a more fundamental principle that governs God's dealings with people. On what basis does God consistently deal with us?
Throughout the Book of Job this is the major question that God is answering. Every major character in the book--Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zopher, and Elihu--assumed that God governed humankind on the basis of retribution. They believed there were no exceptions to the rule that God blesses good people and punishes bad people.
Job concluded that God was unjust since he had been good but God was allowing him to suffer. Job's wife agreed with him. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zopher believed that Job must be a bad man instead of a good man since he was suffering. Elihu felt the solution to this apparent exception to the rule was not God's injustice but Job's ignorance rather than his sin. Elihu took a more agnostic approach to the solution of Job's problem. He suspected Job was a bad man, but he wasn't as sure about that as Job's other three friends were.
The Book of Job reveals that while God usually blesses the godly and punishes the ungodly, He does not always do so. There is a more fundamental basis from which God operates. That basis is His own free choice to bless or not bless whom He will.
We might conclude then that the basis of God's dealings with mankind is His sovereignty. However, that answer goes too far back. God's sovereignty really has nothing to do with how He rules. The attribute of sovereignty only sets forth God's position as supreme ruler. How does God rule sovereignly? If it is not on the basis of retribution, on what basis is it?
Evidence in the Book of Job points to God's grace as the basis of His dealings with people. Instead of always dealing with us in retribution, God always deals with us in grace. What does this mean?
This means that instead of responding to our good actions with blessing or our bad actions with cursing God initiates favor toward us without our deserving it.
What is the evidence in the Book of Job that God always deals with people on this basis?
This comes through in God's responses to Job (chs. 38-41). In replying to Job, God essentially reminded him of how good He had been to Job. He pointed out how much wiser and stronger He was than Job. In all of this, God wanted to impress Job with His favor toward the patriarch. That Job got the point is clear from the fact that when God finished speaking Job simply rested in God (42:6). He returned to his joy in being the recipient of God's unmerited favor even though God had not answered his questions.
How does the conflict in heaven that we learn about in chapters 1 and 2 fit into this view? Satan too believed that retribution was the basis on which God deals with people (1:9-11). God proceeded to show him that he was wrong. God allowed calamities to overtake a good man. Then when Job's trouble was all over, God blessed him even though he did not trust and obey God as he should have during his trials (42:12-17).
Satan has consistently failed to appreciate God's grace. Instead of being grateful for his own blessings, he has been in rebellion to obtain more than God gave him. Moreover he has led people to do the same things (cf. Gen. 3; Matt. 4).
I would also like to comment on a fourth possible message of the book that some have suggested. Some students of Job have said that the whole purpose of the book is to show God's superiority over Satan. Not many people hold this view, but it has appealed to some. The main problem with this interpretation, from my viewpoint, is that the dialogues and monologues that constitute the bulk of the book (in chapters 3-41) contribute nothing to this theme. While they do contain references to God's greatness, they do not deal with the issue of God's superiority over Satan.
Finally let me make some observations about the great revelation of this book, namely that the basis for God's dealings with man is His grace rather than His retribution.
First, the Book of Job appears to have been one of the first books of the Bible that God gave as special revelation if not the first. If it was one of the first, its subject would have been one of the most foundational for human beings to understand as history unfolded. What more basic revelation could God have given than the message of this book? The knowledge that God initiates favor toward His creatures without their earning or deserving it is at the heart of God's plan of salvation and the doctrine of God. When you think of Job, think of grace (cf. Ps. 103:10).
Second, like Satan, we tend to disbelieve that God wants the best for us, and we doubt that He will give it to us. Consequently we try to secure what we want for ourselves. We also become ungrateful for God's grace. Ingratitude is at the root of much sin as well as much unhappiness in life. Rejoice in God's grace. Cultivate a spirit of thankfulness (1 Thess. 5:18).
Third, we tend to elevate a secondary principle of God's dealings with people (retribution) into the primary position because it enables us to feel we have some control over God. In this way we can get God to serve us rather than serving God. If I can obligate God to bless me by being good, then God owes me something. Many people, of course, believe God owes them salvation because they are good people. However, we cannot dictate to God how He should bless us. We can count on His promises to bless in certain ways when we relate to Him in certain ways. Yet if God does not bless us as we wish He would, when we do not have His promise, we can still count on the fact that He will bless us ultimately. He will do so because it is His will and He has promised to bless the righteous. His basis of dealing with us is grace.
What about the unsaved? If God wants to bless everyone, why does He send some to eternal torment? The fact that some people choose not to accept God's grace does not mean He does not reach out to them with grace. The whole Bible is a testimony to the fact that God always has and always will reach out to humankind offering unmerited favor. The basis of God's dealings with humankind is grace. His common grace extends to all (Rom. 1; Eph. 1). God does not give us what we deserve. He gives us much better than we deserve.
I. Prologue chs. 1-2
A. Job's character 1:1-5
B. Job's calamities 1:6-2:10
1. The first test 1:6-22
2. The second test 2:1-10
C. Job's comforters 2:11-13
II. The dialogue concerning the basis of the divine-human relationship 3:1-42:6
A. Job's personal lament ch. 3
1. The wish that he had not been born 3:1-10
2. The wish that he had died at birth 3:11-19
3. The wish that he could die then 3:20-26
B. The first cycle of speeches between Job and his three friends chs. 4-14
1. Eliphaz's first speech chs. 4-5
2. Job's first reply to Eliphaz chs. 6-7
3. Bildad's first speech ch. 8
4. Job's first reply to Bildad chs. 9-10
5. Zophar's first speech ch. 11
6. Job's first reply to Zophar chs. 12-14
C. The second cycle of speeches between Job and his three friends chs. 15-21
1. Eliphaz's second speech ch. 15
2. Job's second reply to Eliphaz chs. 16-17
3. Bildad's second speech ch. 18
4. Job's second reply to Bildad ch. 19
5. Zophar's second speech ch. 20
6. Job's second reply to Zophar ch. 21
D. The third cycle of speeches between Job and his three friends chs. 22-27
1. Eliphaz's third speech ch. 22
2. Job's third reply to Eliphaz chs. 23-24
3. Bildad's third speech ch. 25
4. Job's third reply to Bildad chs. 26-27
E. Job's concluding soliloquies chs. 28-31
1. Job's discourse on God's wisdom ch. 28
2. Job's defense of his innocence chs. 29-31
F. Elihu's speeches chs. 32-37
1. The introduction of Elihu 32:1-5
2. Elihu's first speech 32:6-33:33
3. Elihu's second speech ch. 34
4. Elihu's third speech ch. 35
5. Elihu's fourth speech chs. 36-37
G. The cycle of speeches between Job and God 38:1-42:6
1. God's first speech 38:1-40:2
2. Job's first reply to God 40:3-5
3. God's second speech 40:6-41:34
4. Job's second reply to God 42:1-6
III. Epilogue 42:7-17
A. Job's friends 42:7-9
B. Job's fortune 42:10-17
