The poetic body to the book begins with a soliloquy in which Job cursed the day of his birth. This introductory soliloquy corresponds to another one Job gave at the end of his dialogue with his three friends (chs. 29-31), especially chapter 31 in which he uttered another curse against himself. These two soliloquies bracket the three cycles of speeches and bind them together into a unified whole.
Evidently the passing of time brought Job no relief but only continued the irritation of his persisting pain. In chapter 2 Job restrained his words and manifested a submissive attitude. In chapter 3 his statements are assertive and angry. In this section Job articulated a death wish. He really expressed three wishes.
The two soliloquies of Job (chs. 3 and 29-31) enclose three cycles of dialogue between Job and his three friends. Each cycle consists of speeches by Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar in that order interspersed with Job's reply to each address. This pattern continues through the first two cycles of speeches (chs. 4-14 and 15-21) but breaks down in the third when Zophar failed to continue the dialogue.
"There are two basic lines of interaction which run through Job--Job's crying out to God and Job's disputations with his three friends. The absence of the third speech of Zophar is consistent with the fact that each of the speeches of the three friends is progressively shorter in each cycle and that Job's responses to each of the friends (which also are progressively shorter) are longer than the corresponding speech of the friends. This seems to signify Job's verbal victory over Zophar and the other two friends. It is also indicative of the bankruptcy and futility of dialogue when both Job and the three friends assume the retribution dogma (which for the friends implies Job's guilt and for Job implies God's injustice). Consequently, this structural design marks a very gradual swing toward a focus on Job's relationship and interaction with God in contrast to the earlier primary interaction between Job and his friends."34
Throughout the three cycles of speeches Job's friends did not change their position. They believed that God rewards the righteous and punishes sinners, the theory of retribution.35They reasoned that all suffering is punishment for sin, and since Job was suffering, he was a sinner. They believed that what people experience depends on what they have done (cf. John 9:2). While this is true often, it is not the fundamental reason we experience what we do in life, as the Book of Job proceeds to reveal.
As the speeches unfolded, Job's friends became increasingly vitriolic and specific about Job's guilt. This was true of Eliphaz (cf. 5:8; ch. 15; 22:5-9), Bildad (cf. 8:6; ch. 18; 25:5-6), and Zophar (cf. 11:14; ch. 20).
In each of his speeches Job affirmed his innocence of great sin (6:10; 9:21; 16:17; 27:6). In his first five responses he charged God with afflicting him (6:4; 9:17; 13:27; 16:12; 19:11). In each of his first three replies in the first cycle he asked, "Why?"(7:20; 10:2; 13:24). In all six of his speeches he longed to present his case to God (9:3; 13:3; 16:21; 19:23; 23:4; 31:35).
Job's friends each emphasized a different aspect of God's character. Eliphaz pointed out the distance between God and man (4:17-19; 15:14-16) and stressed God's punishment of the wicked (5:12-14). Bildad said God is just (8:3), great (25:2-3), and that He punishes only the wicked (18:5-21). God's inscrutability impressed Zophar (11:7) who also stated that God punishes the wicked quickly (20:23).
Eliphaz spoke to Job with the most respect and restraint, Bildad was more direct and less courteous, and Zophar was the most blunt and harsh. Eliphaz based his arguments on experience (4:8; 5:3; 15:17), Bildad on tradition (8:8-10), and Zophar on mere assumption (20:1-5). Eliphaz viewed life as a mystic, Bildad as an attorney, and Zophar as a dogmatist. Bildad and Zophar picked up themes from Eliphaz's speeches and echoed them with slightly variant emphases (cf. 5:9 and 22:12 with 8:3, 5; 22:2a with 11:7, 11; 15:32-34 with 18:16 and 20:21-22; and 5:14 with 18:5, 6, 18 and 20:26).
In the second cycle of speeches Job's companions did not change their minds about why Job was suffering and the larger issue of the basis of the divine human relationship. They continued to hold the dogma of retribution. Their spirit did change, however, to one of greater hostility. They seem to have abandoned hope that direct appeals to Job would move him to repent because they no longer called on him to repent. Instead they stressed the fate of the wicked and indirectly urged him to repent. In their first speeches their approach was more intellectual; they challenged Job to think logically. In their second speeches their approach was more emotional; they sought to convict Job's conscience.
"In the first [cycle of speeches] Eliphaz had emphasised [sic] the moral perfection of God, Bildad his unwavering justice, and Zophar his omniscience. Job in reply had dwelt on his own unmerited sufferings and declared his willingness to meet God face to face to argue his case. Having failed to stir his conscience, the friends see in him a menace to all true religion, and in the second cycle their rebukes are sharper than in the first, though their characters are still carefully preserved."72
In round one of the debate Job's friends probed his intellect, and in round two they probed his conscience. In round three they probed specific issues.
We could summarize the criticisms of Job's three companions in their speeches as follows.
Many critical scholars believe that a later editor inserted chapters 32-37 in the text of Job.135Most conservatives believe there is ample external and internal evidence indicating that this section of chapters fits into the argument of the book.
". . . the Elihu speeches (chaps. 32-37), which seemingly interrupt the argument of the book, actually set the stage for the Yahweh speeches. Elihu appears as a type of mediator (an impartial witness) who speaks on behalf of God (36:2) by rebuking the three friends (cf. 32:3, 6-14; 34:2-15; cf. 35:4) and by suggesting that Job needed to repent of his pride which developed because of his suffering (cf. 33:17; 35:12-16). He recommended that Job should exalt God's works which are evident in nature (36:24-37:18) and fear Him who comes in golden splendor out of the north (37:22-24). These basic ideas of Elihu are either assumed or developed by the Lord in His speeches."136
Finally God spoke to Job and gave revelation that Job had been demanding for so long (cf. 13:22; 31:35). There was now no need for the middle-man that Job had requested who could mediate between them (cf. 9:33; 16:19). Yahweh spoke directly to Job, and Job had the opportunity to respond directly to God.
What God did not say to Job is as surprising as what He did say. He did not mention Job's suffering, He gave no explanation of the problem of evil, and He did not defend Himself against Job's charge of injustice. God simply revealed Himself to Job and his companions to a greater degree than they had known, and that greater revelation dissolved their difficulties.
"The reader is told why Job was suffering in the Prologue, but that is to show that Job was innocent. Job was never told this; had he been told, the book would immediately lose its message to all other sufferers. So the book is teaching us through the divine theophany that there is something more fundamental than an intellectual solution to the mystery of innocent suffering. Though the message reaches Job through his intellect, it is for his spirit."153
"To Elihu the suffering may bring enrichment; to the author of the book of Job it is the presence of God that is enriching, and that presence is given to men of integrity and piety in prosperity and in adversity alike."154
". . . whereas the advice of Elihu is to learn his lessons that his prosperity may be restored, the effect of the Divine speeches is to make Job realize that he may have the Divine fellowship in his sufferings, and not merely when he has been delivered from them."155
God's role in His speeches was not that of the defendant on trial whom prosecutor Job was charging with injustice. Rather He was the prosecutor who was asking the questions of Job, the defendant. He asked him more than 70 unanswerable questions and proved him both ignorant and impotent. Since Job could not understand or determine God's ways with nature, he obviously could not comprehend or control God's dealings with people.
