Divine Anger,Intercession,and Restoration: Theology and Ethics in Job 42:7–10

Abstract

The epilogue to the book of Job (42:7–17) has often been denigrated as an anticlimactic ending that ruins a good story. Particularly controversial is the surprising divine verdict against the orthodox friends of Job for their failure to speak rightly about God, as Job has, even though Job has uttered vitriolic criticisms of God and has been reprimanded by YHWH. This essay offers a fresh re-consideration of this verdict within its literary context. It maintains that Job 42:7–10 is a coherent passage that offers an appropriate and theologically rich conclusion to the book.

To interpreters who extol the literary brilliance and theological profundity of the book of Job, the epilogue (42:7–17) has been an embarrassment. Coming on the heels of YHWH’s theophanic discourses, it seems anticlimactic. The narrator appears to return to the theological naïveté of the prologue, leaving readers with a fairytale-like ending of the protagonist living “happily ever after.” Some would have preferred the story to conclude with the divine revelation in chs. 38–41. Others grudgingly concede that Job’s contrite response in 42:2–6, while disappointing, is perhaps inevitable and appropriate enough, but they think the “Hollywood ending” of the epilogue ruins the story.

Especially irksome to most is the vindication of Job, despite his blasphemous hostility towards God, while his friends, who have defended God’s reputation, are condemned. Indeed, God’s affirmation of Job in 42:7 has been called “perhaps the most amazing inconsistency in the whole book.” ¹ Furthermore, Job, who has vehemently rejected the doctrine of retribution espoused by his friends, is ironically “rewarded for his righteous refusal to link righteousness and reward.” ²

Despite the practically unmanageable plethora of studies, there remains no resolution to these challenges and no consensus on the theological and ethical implications of the text. I propose in this essay to revisit the epilogue, though, given its complexity and richness, it is necessary to focus on the first portion, 42:7–10.

Divine Anger

The event is set “after YHWH had spoken these words to Job,” ³ meaning the divine speeches in chs. 38–41, passing over in silence Job’s response in the preceding passage. The narrator merely notes that YHWH, having addressed Job, now speaks to his friends. The speeches of YHWH revolve around issues at the heart of Job’s protests: divine design for the cosmos (chs. 38–39) and divine jurisdiction (chs. 40–41). Now the Deity turns to Job’s three friends, whose primary concern has been divine retribution for sin.

Curiously, however, YHWH addresses Eliphaz alone by name, even though the message is for all three. Commentators often venture that Eliphaz is singled out because he is the eldest among them, though we actually know nothing about their ages. Easier to corroborate is Samuel Balentine’s observation that Eliphaz has always been the first to respond to Job. ⁴ More importantly, it was Eliphaz who fully laid out the doctrine of retribution (4:7–5:7; 15:14–16), which the others subsequently espoused. ⁵

The mention of YHWH’s anger recalls the introduction to the Elihu speeches, which highlights his anger against Job and against his friends (32:3–4). Elihu’s anger thus anticipated YHWH’s anger, though YHWH anger is directed only at the friends. The specific Hebrew idiom for the kindling of anger, ḥārâ ʾap bә-, is especially common in the Deuteronomistic History for divine anger against people for infidelity. ⁶ It has its roots, however, in the tradition regarding divine anger against Israel for their idolatry, though the expected retribution was averted when Moses interceded for them (Exod 32:7–34; Num 11:1–35).

YHWH states the reason for divine anger against the friends in v. 7b (repeated in v. 8b). They have not spoken nәkônâ, a term for what is right and true, as in Ps 5:10 (9), also concerning speech. This is also a sense of nākôn (Deut 13:14; 17:14), though the term may be used adverbially, as in Sir 5:11 (Ms C). But how has Job spoken nәkônâ, “the truth” (NJPS), or “what is right” (NRSV), or “rightly” (NAB) and the friends not?

Some interpreters, skeptical that the Deity who has reprimanded Job (38:2; 40:8) would now endorse his unorthodox utterances contend that the affirmation pertains only to Job’s “confession” in 42:6 (so Ibn Ezra and Moses Qimhi), ⁷ or more broadly, his words of contrition in 40:4–5 and 42:2–6. ⁸ In this view, Job spoke rightly when he admitted to being wrong, not when he inveighed against God. This is an odd argument, given that v. 7 is noticeably silent about Job’s response to God. Besides, the verdict is about what the friends have not said. Those who take the epilogue to be part of an original prose narrative separate from the poem sometimes posit that YHWH commends only what Job says in the prologue (1:21–22; 2:10). ⁹ But, again, the verdict emphasizes what the friends have not said. Indeed, the contrast between the orations of the friends and Job indicates that YHWH means their competing perspectives in the Dialogue. The issue must therefore be the point of contention in the Dialogue: the question of Job’s innocence or guilt on the one hand and the justice of God on the other. ¹⁰

Some medieval commentators, explaining God’s anger in tandem with Elihu’s anger (32:3–4), understood God to mean that the friends had spoken wrongly when they declared Job guilty, whereas Job spoke rightly in maintaining his innocence. ¹¹ The friends had insisted that Job would not have suffered had he not been guilty, contrary to what God had vouched regarding Job’s character (1:8; 2:3). ¹² Like these interpreters, Calvin did not take God to mean Job was right in everything he had said. Job had a good case—that he did not deserve retribution—but he argued it badly and hence was rebuked by God. Job’s friends, by contrast, had sound theological points, though they misapplied them to Job. ¹³

Critical for understanding YHWH’s verdict is the Hebrew expression dibber ʾel-, usually “to speak to,” though ʾel- may be used interchangeably with ʿal-, “about, concerning.” The ancient versions take dibber ʾel- to mean “to speak before/in the presence of,” and some medieval interpreters also shared this understanding (Saadiah, Joseph Qara). ¹⁴ Others equated ʾēlay with ʿālay (Yefet, Moses Qimhi). This is the view of most modern commentators, as evident in most modern translations: “about me” (NIV, NJPS), “concerning me” (NAB), or “of me” (NRSV). But what does it mean to speak rightly about God? According to Yefet, the friends were saying in effect that “it is not possible” that God would have let Job suffer were it not for the gravity of his sins. ¹⁵ In the same vein, Karl Barth argues that Job’s friends are wrong in their restriction of divine freedom. ¹⁶ They are purveyors of falsehood, for there is no room in their theology for individual experience that contradicts their systematized view of God. Job, by contrast, is a speaker of truth. Yet, Job too has systematized God in his uncompromising view that God must be just. While the friends restrict God by their insistence on just retribution, Job restricts God by focusing on his limited understanding of divine justice. How then has Job spoken rightly about God? ¹⁷

Some scholars reject the equation of ʾēlay and ʿālay, arguing that the default meaning of dibber ʾel- is “to speak to,” and this is the only usage of the locution in the book. ¹⁸ Proponents note that the friends never address God directly, ¹⁹ whereas Job addresses God directly in fifty-four verses. ²⁰ Accordingly, the friends only speak about God, whereas Job speaks to God. He has a personal relationship with God, for he prays, ²¹ “bringing his anguish directly to God.” ²²

Against this explanation, Ingo Kottsieper observes that the criticism of the friends is not that they had not spoken to God at all, for if that were the point, it would have sufficed for YHWH to say, “you have not spoken to me.” Indeed, the verdict implies they had spoken, albeit not nәkônâ. ²³ Kottsieper takes nәkônâ to have a judicial sense, like nākôn in Deut 13:15 and 17:4, which has to do with ascertaining the outcome of a case under investigation. Moreover, he emends ʾēlay to ʾĕlê (a long form of ʾel-), comparing ʾĕlê nәkônâ to ʾel-nākôn, perhaps meaning “upon certainty” (1 Sam 23:23; 26:4). ²⁴ The friends were speaking without doing due diligence in investigating Job’s case. ²⁵ Kottsieper does not however explain what YHWH means by the failure of the friends to speak kə‘abdȋ, which the ancient versions and most interpreters understand to mean “as my servant (has)” (vv. 7 and 8). ²⁶

David Frankel, however, emends kәʿabdî to bәʿabdî, “against my servant” in vv. 7 and 8, citing (1) many Hebrew manuscripts, (2) LXX in v. 8, ²⁷ (3) the Testament of Job (42:5), and (4) Saadiah. ²⁸ Moreover, since it makes no sense to say “you have not spoken to/about me against my servant Job,” Frankel also deletes ʾēlay as secondary, this time invoking only the Old Greek (OG) version in v. 8 and T. Job 42:5. Taking dibber bə- to mean “testify against,” he understands YHWH to be accusing the friends, saying, “for you did not testify the truth against my servant Job.” They are condemned for defaming Job and concocting sins he had not committed. Yet, it is difficult to justify reading to bəʿabdî. All medieval editions of the Masoretic Text (MT) have kəʿabdî. Except for OG in v. 8 (but not v. 7!), all extant versions reflect kəʿabdî. ²⁹ But the rendering of v. 8 in OG is probably due to the influence of Num 12:8. It is an interpretive move to establish Job as an intercessor like Moses. We should not consider T. Job 42:5 an independent witness, for it is derived from OG. Moreover, while kata + genitive usually means “against,” there are examples of this construction where kata means “about.” ³⁰ Indeed, regardless of the usage of kata in OG, kata in T. Job 42:5 can only mean “about,” not “against”: “You have not spoken truth about (kata) my servant Job.” As for Saadiah, his reading is the same in both vv. 7 and 8: “You did not speak in my presence (bḥḍrty) what is right about my servant (fy ʿbdy) Job.” ³¹ Saadiah’s translation takes ʾēlay to mean “in my presence” and it reflects not bəʿabdî but kə ʿabdî. ³² Virtually all scholars reject the variant bəʿabdî because it is not only poorly attested, it is also the easier reading.

Poignantly, YHWH refers to Job as ʿabdî, “my servant,” four times in the brief span of two verses (vv. 7–8). There is surely much more at stake in this epithet than “a title of honor for one who serves God.” ³³ This designation recalls the prologue, where YHWH invites the Adversary to take notice of Job, twice calling him “my servant,” while attesting to his impeccable character (1:8; 2:3). In each case, the commendation leads to the suffering of Job, whom YHWH calls “my servant,” an epithet reminiscent of the Isaianic suffering servant of YHWH (41:8–9; 41:19; 43:10; 44:1–2; 49:3, 6; 52:13).

Furthermore, in the second commendation of Job as “my servant,” YHWH admits to destroying Job ḥinnām, “for nothing” (2:3), which recalls the Isaianic suffering servant of YHWH being sold ḥinnām (Isa 52:3) and taken away ḥinnām (Isa 52:5). Importantly, the exchange between YHWH and the Adversary takes place at the celestial assembly, where divine beings presented themselves before YHWH (1:6; 2:1). The scene is reminiscent of Psalm 82, where the assembly presided over by God, who judges the other divine beings for their failure to execute justice in their terrestrial domains. Yet, in Job 1–2, YHWH is complicit in the gratuitous suffering of “my servant Job.” This setting of the story highlights the problem of a deity who presides over the suffering of the innocent. The fourfold reference in the epilogue to Job as “my servant,” which harks back to the two mentions of Job as “my servant” in the prologue, reminds the reader of this theological problem that would be at the heart of the dialogue between Job and his friends.

Unlike Job, the friends have not spoken about the problem of divine justice in the face of unjust suffering. It is a non-issue for them, for they adhere to the traditional assumption that there is no such thing as undeserved suffering, and none does so more vehemently than Eliphaz (4:17–18; 15:14–15). To them, God never perverts justice (8:3). This is in stark contrast to Job, who directly addresses the problem of the lack of divine justice (23:4; 19:6–7; 27:2–6). In fact, thus has been his main complaint in all his speeches. What Job has spoken about God in this regard is undeniably nəkônâ, right and true, whereas the friends have not spoken on this problem at all.

Yet, ʾēlay in vv. 7–8 cannot simply mean “about me.” It must surely retain its usual meaning, “to me,” since we have the precise expression dibber ʾel- in this passage: “YHWH had spoken these words to Job” (v. 7a) and “just as YHWH had spoken to them” (v. 9a). Elaine Phillips has identified several passages where the verb dbr + ʾel- may suggest both “to speak to” and “to speak about,” and this may be the case in vv. 7–8. ³⁴ Edward Greenstein has argued persuasively that the book is about truthful discourse, rather than theodicy. ³⁵ Although he takes ʾēlay to mean “about me,” I submit that the dual sense of ʾēlay as “about me” as well as “to me,” strengthens his case that the key concern in the book is “speaking truth to power” (emphasis mine). Greenstein cites a rabbinic tradition comparing Job’s truthful God-talk with that of Abraham’s exchange with God in Gen 18:16–33. The patriarch’s exchange with God on the question of divine justice is indeed instructive, for dibber ʾel- occurs four times in the passage, all of Abraham speaking to God about divine justice (Gen 18:27, 29, 31, 33).

Although speaking nəkônâ encompasses all manner of truth telling, the key problem in the book is truth telling to and about God regarding the problem of unjust suffering. A case in point is in 10:2–22, where Job speaks to God about God’s willful perpetration of injustice against him. Despite knowing Job is not guilty, the creator seems determined to destroy the creature. The verb for God’s destruction (blʿ) of him in 10:8 is the same one God uses in 2:3 in admitting that he has destroyed (blʿ) “my servant Job” gratuitously. Job is speaking to God about God. He speaks honestly, though unbeknownst to him (but known to God), he also speaks the truth.

Intercession

YHWH’s anger at Job’s friends means they should expect retribution. To avoid this consequence, they must go to “my servant Job” with seven bulls and seven rams as burnt offerings so that “my servant Job” might pray for them (v. 8). The mention of burnt offerings and Job’s mediation recalls his preemptive intervention on behalf of his children (1:5). Yet, one wonders why the prescribed remedy for Job’s friends must be so elaborate for what seems like a sin of omission. Indeed, the requirement in this case far exceeds any other instruction in the Torah for the expiation of sin (Leviticus 4–5). Perhaps the repetition of the symbolically significant number “seven” indicates the severity of their sin (cf. 2 Chr 29:21). ³⁶

The sacrifice of seven bulls and seven rams is reminiscent of an event during the sojourn of the Israelites in the plain of Moab, when the Moabite king commissions a non-Israelite seer named Balaam to curse Israel. In preparation for this task, Balaam orders the construction of seven altars on which seven bulls and seven rams would be offered, a pair of bulls and rams on each altar (Num 23:1–2, 4, 14, 29). The sacrifice is a divination ritual to ensure the efficacy of the curse. But the curse backfires when YHWH causes Balaam to speak words of blessing instead. Still, even such an extravagant sacrifice would not suffice to save the friends, for they must still seek the mediation of Job, whom God calls “my servant.” This is YHWH’s designation for Moses (Num 12:7–8; Josh 1:2, 7; 2 Kgs 21:8; Mal 3:22), Israel’s quintessential intercessor, whose prayer is essential for averting divine anger, the topic announced in v. 7. ³⁷ Indeed, Moses the servant of YHWH and intercessor par excellence appears to have been the model for the Isaianic servant of YHWH. ³⁸ The verb hitpallēl, “to pray” (vv. 8, 10) is used for the prayer of various intercessors, but it is Moses whose prayer could assuage divine anger (Num 11:1–2; 21:7; Deut 9:19–20, 25–26). Also relevant is Num 12:6–14, where Moses, whom YHWH calls “my servant,” magnanimously intercedes for those who have been against him when the anger of YHWH is kindled against them. ³⁹

The specification of seven bulls and seven rams is not incidental. These are the offerings a non-Israelite seer has prescribed for condemning Israel, though the curse turned into a blessing because of YHWH’s partiality towards Israel. The friends are to offer the same, though their offerings would be effectual only through the intercession of “my servant,” who has spoken rightly to God about God. One may perhaps detect a subtle dig at Eliphaz’s claim of prophetic authority to bolster his theology of retribution (4:12–16). What is required to avert divine anger is not just the elaborate sacrifice that even a non-Israelite seer knew to prescribe, albeit unsuccessfully. Rather, it is “my servant Job” whose intercession would be indispensable for turning curse to blessing. YHWH says Job is to pray for them, “for only his face will I lift up,” an idiom of partiality found several times in the Dialogue, notably of divine acceptance of prayer, as the friends have it (11:15; 22:26). They who urged Job to pray (8:5–6; 11:13; 22:27) and accused him of diminishing prayer (15:4), must count on him to pray for them.

The outcome of this mediation is stated rather awkwardly—in terms of what YHWH will not do: “by not dealing outrageously with you.” This language here is shocking, for the Hebrew expression, ʿāśâ nəbālâ, literally, “do an outrage,” ⁴⁰ typically refers to sexual offences, most often rape (Gen 34:7; Judg 19:23–24; 20:6, 10; 2 Sam 13:13), but also adultery (Jer 29:23), and an unmarried woman’s fornication in her father’s house (Deut 22:21). The only instance that is not sexual is in Josh 7:15, concerning Achan, who had violated the ban—the stipulation that all booty of holy war must be destroyed (Josh 6:17–21), though in that case, it may be an example of coarse language used to characterize sacrilege. Furthermore, nəbālâ, “outrage,” ⁴¹ echoes Job’s rebuke of his wife for her blasphemous urging of Job to “bless” God and die: “You speak as one of the outrageous women (hannəbālôt)” (2:10). It is also a term for other outrageous speeches (Isa 9:16; 32:6). This disconcerting locution for divine retribution underscores the heinous nature of the offence of Job’s friends. God will act outrageously with them because they have sinned outrageously. ⁴² Sidestepping the theological problem, the Old Greek has “I would have destroyed you.” ⁴³ The Vulgate makes it about the conduct of the friends: “so that folly may be counted against you.” The Targum and Syriac have “deal with you ignominiously,” which is closer to the Hebrew but leaves it unclear if the ignominy is that of the subject (God) or object (the friends). ⁴⁴

Most modern translations similarly circumvent the theological problem by rendering nəbālâ as “folly” and avoiding God as the subject: “not deal with you according to your folly” (NRSV, NIV), “punish your folly” (NAB), “making fools of you” (CEB). In all other occurrences of the idiom, however, the nəbālâ has to do with the act by the subject, not its effect on the object. Closer to the sense of the Hebrew, Saadiah and Yefet understand God to say, “I will not bring vileness (sqʾṭh) upon you.” ⁴⁵ Similarly, NJPS reads: “not treat you vilely.” Such atrocious divine action against Job’s friends seems disproportionate, especially given what is ostensibly a sin of omission. Note, however, that in every occurrence of the expression, the integrity and wellbeing of the community are at stake. Hence the idiom is almost always qualified by “in Israel.” ⁴⁶

The case of Achan is especially instructive, for his offence of violating the ban caused the anger of YHWH to be kindled against all the people of Israel (Josh 7:1–15), just as YHWH’s anger is kindled against the friends (v. 7). We infer therefore that the friends of Job who have not spoken “rightly,” as Job has, have endangered the integrity and wellbeing of the community. It would take the intercession of the servant of YHWH to turn away YHWH’s anger. Divine partiality towards Job means his intercession will be efficacious in saving the friends from YHWH’s outrageous retribution. At the same time, ironically, Job’s intercession will also save YHWH from committing such outrage. Balentine therefore speaks of Job playing an intercessory role “for God as much as for the friends.” ⁴⁷ It is only with Job’s intercession that YHWH will not act outrageously. Hence, YHWH tells the friends, “even though you have not spoken to/about me rightly as my servant Job has,” as if the prayer itself is speaking rightly to and about God.

Fortunately, the friends followed the instructions “and YHWH lifted the face of Job” (v. 9). The final clause in v. 9 is surprising, for it seems redundant. One might have expected the narrator to say, “because YHWH lifted the face of Job.” Perhaps we are to understand the first lifting of face (v. 8) as God’s preliminary favor in the acceptance of the prayer (v. 8), and the second as the realization of the prayer when the friends obeyed (v. 9). This seems to be Saadiah’s understanding, for he interprets the same idiom differently—first as favorable reception of the prayer (v. 8) and then as the favorable outcome of the prayer (v. 9). Other exegetes similarly understood v. 8 to mean YHWH received Job’s prayer for the forgiveness of the friends and v. 9 as the realization of the prayer (Rashbam). ⁴⁸ Indeed, where MT has “and YHWH lifted the face of Job” in v. 10, 11Q10 (an Aramaic version from Qumran) reads: “And G[o]d heard the voice of Job and forgave them their sins because of him.” The Old Greek says much more briefly, “He forgave them their sins.” These are appropriate interpretive renderings of the Hebrew that says, “and YHWH lifted the face of Job.”

The repeated reference to YHWH’s lifting of the face of Job in vv. 8 and 9 reinforces the point that forgiveness for the friends would come only on account of Job, even though they have not spoken rightly to/about God “as my servant Job.” The role of Job as YHWH’s servant calls to mind YHWH’s servant who suffered vicariously that others may be reconciled to God (Isa 52:13–53:12). ⁴⁹ One may also discern here an echo of the tradition of Job among the ancient paragons, whose righteousness was salvific for others (Ezek 14:14, 20). ⁵⁰

Restoration

The trope of Job’s intercession for his friends continues in v. 10, which closes this portion, though this verse also introduces the theme of the restoration of Job that will be fleshed out in the rest of the epilogue. Appropriately marking the turning point is the Hebrew idiom for restoration, šûb šəbût/šəbît, literally, “to (re)turn a (re)turning,” usually meaning the end of affliction, the reversal of divine judgment, and a return to status quo. ⁵¹ Importantly, it is always used of a community, never an individual. Yet the text says, “YHWH restored Job.” ⁵² To explain this oddity, Yitzhak Berger calls attention to the same idiom in Deut 30:3, which concerns the reversal of the covenant curses in Deuteronomy 28, including the affliction of their body with a terrible inflammation (šəḥîn raʿ) “from sole of your feet to the crown of your head” (Deut 28:35), which precisely describes Job’s bodily affliction (2:7, compare Exod 9:8–10). ⁵³ The implication, then, is that the restoration of Job involves also the restoration of his friends, who had, after all, expressed solidarity with him by symbolically invoking upon themselves the affliction of Job (2:12). Moreover, the text says, “YHWH restored Job when he prayed for his friends.” It is not that YHWH restored him “after he had prayed for his friends” (so NAB, compare NIV). Rather, the restoration happened “when he prayed for his friends,” or, literally, “in his praying for his friends.” It is in the restoration of the community that Job is restored. His intercession has assuaged the anger of YHWH against the friends. The danger of YHWH acting outrageously because of the outrageous sin of the friends has been averted.

Whereas nothing is said of Job’s restoration following his response in 42:2-6, we now learn that YHWH restored him when he prayed for his friends. Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik observes that Job had previously offered burnt offerings for his family (1:5) and yet his intercession had been unsuccessful. It is only when he prays for his friends, who have been his adversaries, that his prayer is efficacious for all of them. ⁵⁴ Indeed, says Soloveitchik in another context, Job’s prayer for the friends was a transforming moment for him, for he is now able to look beyond himself and his own need of an explanation for suffering to its rectification through the reconciliation of humankind. ⁵⁵ YHWH’s restoration of Job and Job’s role as an agent of restoration are interconnected.

The narrator then notes, “and YHWH increased all that belonged to Job twofold,” which harks back to “all that belong to him” in 1:10. Contrary to the common assumption about Job being rewarded for being right, there is no indication that this increase is a reward. The doubling of lost possessions recalls the stipulation in the Covenant Code that stolen or damaged property must be restored twofold to the one who has been unjustly harmed (Exod 22:3, 6–7 [4, 7–8]). ⁵⁶ Some interpreters therefore take the double restitution of Job’s loss possession as a tacit admission by YHWH of wrong done to Job. ⁵⁷ Accordingly, this restitution—a compensation, not a reward—corroborates Job’s claim of unjust suffering, thus confirming that he has indeed spoken rightly in this regard. As Robert Polzin puts it, by this double restitution God confirms by word the affirmation of Job’s rightness in vv. 7–9, even as God confirms by deed what is said in the theophany—that God is all powerful. ⁵⁸ Nevertheless, the text does not say the double restitution is a rectification of wrong on the part of God. ⁵⁹ Moreover, there are other references to double restitution by God without implication of divine wrongdoing, most notably Isa 61:7–9, which affirms YHWH as one who loves justice (Zech 9:12). What we have here, rather, is the restoration of hope as an outcome of prayer. ⁶⁰ Berger, who discerns several affinities between the stories of Job and Joseph, argues that the wording of this line is a deliberate echo of restoration and vindication of Joseph over his brothers who had done him wrong. For Job, however, restoration occurred only when he prayed for his friends. ⁶¹ Job’s prayer for the sake of others turns out to be also his own sake.

Divine anger is a recurrent trope in the poems, notably in the speeches of Job, who has perceived his suffering as stemming from divine anger (6:4; 14:13; 16:9; 19:2). Yet there is no explicit claim anywhere of YHWH’s anger with him. The Deity does rebuke Job (38:2; 40:8), though not for sins he had committed but for his inadequate knowledge of the cosmos, a rebuke that Job accepts (42:3). There is therefore no contradiction between YHWH’s rebuke of Job and the affirmation of him as a truth-teller. Job’s friends, by contrast, have spoken of divine anger directed at sinners (4:9; 20:23, 28), yet they are the ones on the receiving end of God’s retributive wrath for their theology of retribution.

YHWH repeated reference to Job as “my servant” is an important clue for understanding what is at stake in YHWH’s anger with the friends. The epithet, “my servant,” recalls two scenes in the prologue of the divine assembly presided over by God, reminiscent of divine assembly in Psalm 82, where God judges other deities for their failure to ensure justice on earth. Yet, YHWH is the one who sets in motion Job’s suffering by commending him as “my servant,” each time vouching for his impeccable character. The prologue leaves no doubt that Job’s suffering is not retributive. The epilogue corroborates this point, as YHWH confirms the veracity of what Job has said and restores to him twofold the possessions he had lost, but does not explain Job’s unjust loss. The framing, therefore, signals that the book of Job is not about theodicy. It does not explain the existence of evil. Rather, as Gustavo Gutiérrez suggests, the book advocates truthful God-talk in the face of innocent suffering. ⁶² The epilogue does not imply that Job’s restoration was a reward for his righteousness, though it does affirm that he has spoken rightly to and about God regarding of unjust suffering. Truthful speaking is critical, even if it does not explain evil, for as David Burrell avers, “speaking to someone can engage both in a relationship of exchange open to yet other forms of understanding.” ⁶³ The epilogue underscores what the book as a whole maintains—that unjust suffering is a reality of life on earth. It subverts the notion that suffering is always retributive.

Yet, the rejection of retribution as the explanation for all suffering is not tantamount to a denial of retribution as a feature of divine justice. Sin does indeed provoke divine anger. The verdict against the friends in vv. 7–8 is not for everything they have said but for their failure to address the theological problem of unjust suffering. This is not a minor omission. On the contrary, it is a severe offence deserving of extraordinarily harsh retribution. The reason for this seemingly disproportionate divine response is unstated, but the language of YHWH’s threat suggests that the friends have rent asunder the social fabric and endangered the wellbeing of their community.

Careless disregard for the suffering of the innocent can be that pernicious. Nonetheless, the situation, though dire, is not hopeless. Redemption for their egregious, despicable negligence is possible through the intercession of YHWH’s suffering servant who has spoken rightly to God about God. The servant of YHWH who has suffered for no reason, would for no reason bring hope of reconciliation and restoration for others, even those who had been his adversaries. Indeed, their well-being is his well-being and wholeness, as if they and he are one.