The Structure and Purpose of Job: Parsons

Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (550)(Apr. 1981) 139-57.

The Structure and Purpose

of the Book of Job

Gregory W. Parsons

It is common knowledge that the Book of Job is universally

admired as a literary masterpiece in world literature. Although

most of the superlatives have been exhausted to describe its

literary excellence, it seems to defy more than a superficial

analysis.¹ There has been little agreement with regard to the

purpose and message of the book. This article will seek to deline-

ate the literary structure of the Book of Job in order to determine

the major purpose of the book. The goal is to demonstrate how

tthe author of Job utilized certain key themes in developing the

purpose and message of the book.

Literary Structure

The unity of the Book of Job will be assumed in the analysis

of its literary structure. It is believed that each component of

the book has a necessary place in the overall design and argument

of Job.²

Job is a complex literary work in which there has been a

skillful wedding of poetry and prose and a masterful mixture of

several literary genres.³ The basic structure of Job consists of a

prose framework (the prologue in chapters 1 and 2, and the

epilogue in 42:7-17) which encloses an intricate poetic body.⁴

The prologue very concisely narrates how God's servant Job

lost his family and his wealth in a rapid-fire succession of cata-

strophic events. Then it relates that when Job's health was re-

moved his wife urged him to curse God and die. Job's three

139

140 Bibliotheca Sacra--April-June 1981

friends, Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, arrived to comfort Job who

remained firm in his devotion to God in the midst of his intense

suffering. The reader is taken behind the scenes and informed

that the reason for these events is that God was permitting Satan

to afflict Job in order to test the motivation for Job's piety. This is

done by rapidly alternating between the earthly setting and the

heavenly court.

The poetic body (3:1-42:6) begins with a personal lament by

Job (chap. 3) in which he curses the day of his birth. This

introductory soliloquy corresponds to the final soliloquy by Job

(chaps. 29-31), and particularly to chapter 31 (his oath of inno-

cence) which includes a self-curse: These two soliloquies enclose

three cycles of disputations (Streitgesprache) between Job and

his three friends. A cycle consists of speeches by the three friends

(Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, in that order) which are inter-

spersed by a reply of Job to each speech.

This pattern is followed for the first two cycles of speeches

(chapters 4-14 and 15-21) but breaks down in the third cycle

(when Zophar fails to speak following Job's response to Bildad

(chap. 26).⁵ Rather than subjectively attempting to restore the

Iallegedly jumbled text, one should recognize that this alteration

of structure contributes to the development of the argument of

the book. 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 re-

sponses to each of the friends (which also are progressively short-

er) are longer than the corresponding speech of the friends. This

seems to signify Job's verbal victory over Zophar and the other

two friends.⁶ It is also indicative of the bankruptcy and futility of

dialogue when both Job and the three friends assume the re-

tribution dogma⁷ (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.⁸

This swing toward an emphasis on Job's dispute with God

continues in chapters 27-31. Following a possible pause in

which Job waited in vain for Zophar's third response,⁹ Job

concluded his words to the friends in chapter 27 by collectively

addressing them¹⁰ and declaring that they had failed to convince

The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job 141

him that he was a sinner who deserved his calamity.¹¹ Chapter

28, a wisdom hymn, may be a kind of interlude which marks the

transition between the two major parts of the poetic body--the

q previous dialogue between Job and his friends, and the forth-

coming long discourses by Job (chaps. 29-31), Elihu (chaps. 32-

37), and God (chaps. 38-41) which are almost monologues.¹²

Chapters 29-31 are comprised of Job's soliloquies¹³ in which he

longs for his past blessed state of prosperity (chap. 29) and

laments his present state of misery because of God's afflictions

(chap. 30, which includes an aside to God in direct speech--

vv. 21-23). The concluding chapter (31) consists of Job's

loath of innocence (common in ancient Near Eastern juridical

cases) in the form of a negative confession complete with self-

imprecations.¹⁴ Job concludes the chapter with a legal indict-

ment against God to present his charges in writing (31:35-37).

The result is a pregnant expectation of God's response.

However, the Elihu speeches (chaps. 32-37), which seem-

ingly interrupt the argument of the book,¹⁵ actually set the

rstage for the Yahweh speeches. Elihu appears as a type of

mediator (an impartial witness) who speaks on behalf of God

(36:2)¹⁶ 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).¹⁷ These basic

ideas of Elihu are either assumed or developed by the Lord in

His speeches.

The climax to the Book of Job appears in the symmetrical

Yahweh speeches (38:1-42:6)--the two divine speeches with

Job's two responses--which are the culmination of the skillfully

designed poetic body of the book.¹⁸ This pericope is comprised of

two divine speeches (each of which is also divided into two prin-

cipal parts) and two human responses. The precise symmetrical

arrangement is illustrated in a comparison of the two "rounds" of

divine-human interaction (see the following chart).

Thus except for the summary challenge in 40:2 for Job to

respond (introduced by a transitional editorial remark), these two

rounds are perfectly symmetrical in basic structure. That no

summary challenge was needed at the end of the Lord's second

speech is indicative that Job's second response (42:1-6) was a

willing one in contrast to his initial reluctant reply (40:3-5).

142 Bibliotheca Sacra--April-June 1981

First Round Second Round

(38: 1-40:5) (40:6--42:6)

Divine Speech 38:1-40:2 40:6--41:34

Introductory

editorial note 38:1 40:6

Thematic challenge 38:2-3 40:7-14

Main body 38:4-38 40:15-24

(in two principal (Inanimate creation) (Behemoth)

parts) 38:39-39:30 41:1-34

(Animate creation) (Leviathan)

(Transitional

editorial note) 40:1 --

Summary challenge 40:2 --

Human Response 40:3-5 42:1-6

Introductory

editorial note 40:3 42:1

Reply per se 40:4-5 42:2-6

The epilogue (42:7-17) in prose is basically a counterbalance

to the prologue. In the prologue Job offered intercessory sacri-

fices for his family; in the epilogue he offered an intercessory

prayer for his three friends. In the former God commended Job as

being of blameless character; in the latter God gave a qualified

commendation of Job's words in contrast to the three friends.

The prologue narrates the removal of Job's family, prosperity,

and health, whereas the epilogue relates the restoration of Job's

family and health and a doubling of his former wealth.

However, both Satan and Job's wife (who are prominent in

the prologue as agents of evil who try to get Job to curse God)¹⁹

are intentionally omitted in the epilogue. This deliberate omis-

sion emphasizes a major teaching of the book, namely, that man's

relationship to God is not a "give-and-get" bargain nor a business

contract of mutual benefit.²⁰

Purpose of the Book

STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE

It is this writer's belief that the purpose of the Book of Job is

to show that the proper relationship between God and man is

based solely on the sovereign grace of God and man's response

of faith and submissive trust.

The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job 143

This involves (in a negative fashion) the refutation of "re-

tribution theology" (a dogmatic employment of the concept of

divine retribution so that there was an automatic connection

between deed and state of being) and its corollary that man's

relationship to God is a business contract of mutual claims that

is binding in court. This statement of purpose involves the

assumption that the relationship between God and man is the

basic problem of the book.²¹ Although there are several sub-

themes which have been cited by scholars as the main theme,²² it

is the belief of this writer that only the basis of the proper

relationship between God and man sufficiently encompasses

these subthemes and qualifies, therefore, as the central focus of

the book.

This problem is articulated in the prologue where Satan

challenges the basis for Job's piety by claiming that he served God

only for profit (i.e., because he prospers--see 1:9-11;

2:4-5).²³ Satan's challenge is reinforced by the fact that Job's wife

urged Job to curse God and die (2:9). That Job refused to curse

God (2: 10) was graphic testimony that his worship was genuine

and that Satan's allegation was false.²⁴

Thus Job's suffering as an innocent party was not the main

focus but was introduced only as a means of isolating and

intensifying the question of the proper basis of man's relation-

ship to God.²⁵

KEY THEMES

Certain key themes are employed by the author to serve the

purpose of the book and to assist in developing its argument.

Perhaps the most important theme is the doctrine of divine

retribution which pervades the Book of Job. Other main motifs

which are utilized include the concept of a "mediator" and the

persistent employment of creation and of legal metaphors. These

major motifs relate to the purpose of the Book of Job.²⁶ (The

concept of a "mediator" will be mentioned in conjunction with

legal metaphors since it seems to be employed in such a context.)

The dogma of divine retribution. The principle of divine

retribution, which is operative in some portions of the Old

Testament,²⁷ and which lay at the core of ancient Near Eastern

religions,²⁸ became a dogma for Job's friends. Because the valid-

ity of this principle (namely, that Yahweh the righteous Judge

rewards the righteous with prosperity and punishes the wicked

with calamity) had become an unquestioned dogma with no

144 Bibliotheca Sacra--April-June 1981

exceptions, it was automatically assumed that all suffering was

caused by sin.

Eliphaz and Bildad asserted that since God, who is an

impartial judge, did not punish the upright man nor preserve the

evildoer, Job's suffering was a sign of hidden sin (see 4:7-11;

5:8-16; 8:3, 11-22; cf. 18:5-21). Thus it seemed evident to the

three friends that Job was a sinner who needed to repent of his

sins and to become piously obedient so that God would bless him

again (see 22:4-11, 21-30, for Eliphaz's words and 11:13-20 for

Zophar's similar sentiment). Bildad also stated that Job's chil-

dren were killed as punishment for their sins (8:4). Both Eliphaz

(15:17-35) and Zophar (20:4-29) argued from experience and the

traditional wisdom of old²⁹ that Job's initial prosperity was

explained by the accepted idea that the wicked enjoy only

temporary prosperity and bliss before God metes out retributive

judgment.

Because of the friends' unquestioned acceptance of the dog-

ma of divine retribution, they were championing the view that the

basis of the relationship between God and man was "God's

impartial, retributive justice and man's pious fear of God.”³⁰ As

man related to God in obedient piety, so God would bless him. As

in Satan's challenge of Job's motive for serving God, the de-

marcation between piety and prosperity became blurred.³¹

Job patiently denied the accusation of the three friends that

he was guilty of sin for which he was being recompensed; he

openly questioned the validity of the dogma of divine retribution

because of the prosperity of the wicked (21:31 ).³² Yet it is ironic

that because Job accused God of injustice in order to maintain

his own righteousness (see 40:8)--operating on the assumption

that God was punishing him for sin, though unjustly--he was

unconsciously retaining the dogma of divine retribution.³³ Be-

cause of this, Job could not harmonize his suffering with God's

being an impartial judge. Rather, Job conceived of God as being

an arbitrary and capricious Sovereign who abused His power

(9:15-24; 12:13-25) and who maliciously treated innocent Job as

a personal enemy (13:24-27; 16:7-17; 19:7-12). As a consequence

of his suffering, Job viewed man's relationship to God as being

based on God's sovereign caprice; therefore man could hope for

happiness only by adhering to an ethical rightness superior to

God's whereby he could demand vindication (Job 31; cf. 35:2b).³⁴

Although Elihu was closer to the truth than the three friends

because he seems to have sensed that Job was guilty of pride

The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job 145

(33:17; cf. 35:12 and 36:9)³⁵ and emphasized suffering as mainly

remedial in purpose (cf. 33:16-30; 36:8-12),³⁶ he also was wrong

in assuming that Job was guilty of sin before his suffering

(34:37) in order to defend God's justice.³⁷ The explanation for this

reasoning was Elihu's failure to divorce himself from the dogma

of divine retribution (see 34:11,25-27; cf. 34:33; 36:17; 37:13).

However, Elihu was right in pointing out the fallacious nature of

Job's position which implied that God owed man something for

his righteousness (35:3-8).³⁸

Although a major thrust of the Lord's speeches (38:1-40:2;

40:6-41:34) was to polemicize against all potential rivals to His

lordship over the cosmos,³⁹ there is also a subtle refutation of the

dogma of divine retribution, Although granting that the control

Iof chaotic forces of evil (which in some instances is inherent in

the design of the universe--38:12-15) is somewhat consistent

with the principle of divine retribution,⁴⁰ God demonstrates that

the universe is not always geared to this principle. Rain, which

not infrequently appears in the Bible as a vehicle of reward and

punishment (cf. Job 37:13 [NIV] and 5:10), is inherently de-

signed to fall on the desert where it has no relevance for man

(38:26).⁴¹ In Job 41: 11 (3)⁴² the Lord may be refuting Job's

apparent contention that God's relationship to man was a juri-

dical relationship in which God was obligated to repay him.⁴³

The epilogue, which records the restoration of Job and a

twofold recompense of his prosperity (42:10, 12-17), seems, at

first glance, to confirm the doctrine of divine retribution,

However, in actuality this restoration was not a reward or pay-

ment but a free gift based solely on God's sovereign grace.⁴⁴ This

is clear from the import of the Lord's speeches and from the fact

that Job's original prosperity was not directly related to his

piety.⁴⁵

The Book of Job shows that only by dispensing with the

traditional dogma of divine retribution was it possible to recon-

cile Job's innocence with God's permitting him to suffer.⁴⁶ The

refutation of this dogma aids in the demolition of its corollary

(which undergirds ancient Near Eastern religions) that man's

relationship to God is based on a juridical claim, Consequently, it

complements the purpose of Job which is to demonstrate the

only proper basis for the relationship between God and man.

Creation motif. During Job's lament in which he cursed the

day of his birth and deplored its creation (i,e., wishing that he

had never been born [3:1-10] or that he had died at birth

146 Bibliotheca Sacra--April-June 1981

[3:11-19]), he summons the agents of chaos to annihilate that

created day in order that he might live in peace (3:8-10). Job

seems to have employed an anti-creation motif in which he

wishes for the reversal of creation.⁴⁷ This motif was apparently

utilized to emphasize the depths of his despair and the intensity

of his anguish as a result of his abrupt transition from a life of

bliss to a mere agonizing existence. Because life and creation had

become hopeless and inexplicable to him, he preferred to aban-

don the created order to the confines of Sheol (nonexistence)

(cf. 7:15-16, 21 ).⁴⁸

Forrest has cogently argued that the reason Job desired

nonexistence was his lack of perception of his own relationship

to God or to the universe (i.e., Job's belonging within the uni-

verse). Thus Forrest has suggested that since creation must

"somehow be explicable to him to be worthy of credence (i.e.,

illustrative of the divine-human relationship in a comprehensi-

ble manner so that Job would want to live in the universe),"

creation provides the scenario for Job's basic inquiries into the

nature of God's relationship to man.⁴⁹ The evidence from the text

seems to support this hypothesis,

Job said that the wondrous acts of God in nature are inex-

plicable to him. He could not perceive God's nature⁵⁰ in these

sovereign works (see 9:10-12; cf, 26:14 and perhaps chap, 28).

Rather, God's sovereign control of nature (creation) appeared to -.

indicate an arbitrary abuse of power and wisdom (9:12, 14-24;

12:13-25; cf. 30:18-23).⁵¹ At the same time, Job appeals to nature

to be a witness for him of the obvious injustices of God against

him (12:7-10; 16:18-19) and of his own ethical purity (see 31:8,

12, 38-40).⁵²

This latter tactic of Job was diametrically opposed to the

friends' appeal to creation to support their theory of retributive

justice as the basis of God's relationship to man (Eliphaz in

4:9-11; Zophar in 20:27-29; and Bildad in 22: 15-18 [cf. vv.

19-20]; cf. also 5:8-16), Eliphaz advised that if Job would sub-

mit under God's corrective punishment, even the wild animals

(as chaotic forces opposed to man) would be at peace with him

(5:23).

Elihu's speeches include a lengthy section on God's;

sovereign and benevolent dealings in nature (36:26-37:24).⁵³

Elihu cited these acts of God as proof that God's sovereign

power and justice are beyond man's comprehension. (Thus

he apparently empathized with Job's failure to perceive God's

The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job 147

nature in creation. Although Elihu acknowledged that God used

nature for His retributive purposes (37:13, NIV) and that nature is

sometimes in chaotic opposition to man (37:6-7), he argued that

the proper response of man to the sovereign (though inexplicably

just) God is reverential trust (37:23-24). In this advice to Job

from creation, Elihu prepared the way for the Lord's speeches.

The Lord's speeches (which are saturated with the creation

motif) demonstrate that God's sovereign cosmic power was not

the retributive justice (as the friends had argued) nor the

"uncontrolled caprice" (as Job had perceived it) of an impersonal

cosmos, but rather the majestic omnipotence and mysterious

creative genius of a personal and gracious God.⁵⁴ The absence

of a reference to the creation of man is part of a polemic against

Job (and man in general) which has as one purpose to show that

God was not obligated to Job's defiant demand for vindication

because of his ethical righteousness (cf. 41:11 [3].⁵⁵ God could

not be manipulated or coerced like the impotent and immanent

gods of the ancient Near East.

Because of Job's perception of this and of God's active partic-

ipation in creation, Job responded in repentance and trust (42:2-

3, 5-6).⁵⁶ Thus it is clear that the Book of Job teaches that the

basis of the relationship between God and man is not one of

mutual benefit or of a juridical obligation which binds God;

rather, it is to be based on the Lord's sovereign "creative, life-

affirming, joyous grace and of man's open, joyous trust"⁵⁷ in Him.

Legal metaphors. The Book of Job extensively employs legal

terms and metaphors in the process of its dialogue concerning

the disputed innocence of Job before God. That the dialogue is

saturated with judicial terminology is quite consistent with the

prominent role Job had previously played in the legal affairs of his

town (29:7-17).⁵⁸ The use of legal metaphor also plays a part in

illustrating the proper basis for man's relationship to God.

Scholnick's valuable study of the legal terminology in the

Book of Job has demonstrated that the terms hcAzA,, j`kazA, rheFA, and hqAnA

(which can be employed in the Old Testament in the sphere of

worship--"pure, clean"--or in the sphere of the court--

"innocent, free of legal claim") are employed in Job almost exclu-

sively in a forensic context to explore the question of Job's legal

status, both before God and in his community.⁵⁹ Other legal

terms employed include rwAyA (1:1,8; 2:3; 8:6; 23:7), qdc (which is

used by each speaker, e.g., 6:29; 8:6; 9:15, 20; 11:2; 22:3; 35:2,

7-8; 40:8) and MymitA (1:1, 8; 2:3; 27:5; 31:6).⁶⁰

148 Bibliotheca Sacra--April-June 1981

Perhaps the most significant single legal term used is the

root byr which is used eleven times in Job (seven times as a verb

--9:3; 10:2; 13:8, 19; 23:6; 33:13; 40:2; and four times as a noun

--13:6; 29:16; 31:13, 35). As a verb in the Old Testament,

it means "to make a complaint or accusation (by engaging in

hostile unilateral speech activity) against an aggrieving party."

As a noun, it denotes "a complaint or accusation by an aggrieved

party against one held responsible for a grievance.”⁶¹ Although

the word byr in the Old Testament sometimes describes a dispute

outside court, it is used in Job solely in a legal sense as a

metaphor to portray a "lawsuit" between Job and God.⁶²

This idea of a man going to court with God is unprecedented

in the Old Testament.⁶³ Thus at first Job was somewhat dubious

that he could raise litigation with God (9:3; cf. 9: 16) since he

views God as a sovereign and unjust judge who has abused His

authority (9: 19-24, 28; 23:7). But Job insists that God make His

charges as a legal opponent rather than His verdict as an unjust

judge (10:2).⁶⁴ Job's legal plight before God, who is simultaneous-

ly his legal adversary⁶⁵ and his judge, accentuates the urgency

(and yet the hopelessness) of Job's cry for a neutral party to hear

his case.⁵⁶

The concept of a mediator (or neutral party) is introduced in

Job 9:33 where Job wished for an impartial HaykiOm to arbitrate a

settlement between God and himself.⁶⁷ This arbitrator was prob-

ably the ancient Near Eastern judge whose "verdict" was probably

no more than a "settlement proposal" which could be accepted or

rejected by the parties involved.⁶⁸ Job's appeal for an impartial

trial is continued in 13:7-12 where he accused the three friends

of being partial witnesses on God's behalf who argue His case for

Him.⁶⁹ The theme of a mediator (or arbitrator) is continued in

16:18-21. Job expressed confidence that surely someone in

heaven was his witness or advocate (v. 19, which uses dfe followed

by its Aramaic equivalent dheWA).⁷⁰ The context (especially v. 21)

supports the NIV translation of ycaylim; (v. 20) as "intercessor": "My

intercessor is my friend as my eyes pour out tears to God; on

behalf of a man he pleads with God as a man pleads for his friend.

Similar to Job's plea for an impartial "go-between" (9:33)

and his confidence of a heavenly witness o~ intercessor (16: 18-

21) is his confident assertion that his lxeGo was alive (19:25).

Because of the acknowledged complex difficulties and the diverse

interpretations of Job 19:25-27,72 it is impossible to speak

The Structure and Purpose of the Book of Job 149

dogmatically about verse 25. However, because of the widespread

usage of the legal metaphor in Job, it seems likely that Job spoke

metaphorical of the lxeGo as one who was “helper in a lawsuit to

see that justice was done to his protege"⁷³ (cf. Ps. 119:154;

Prov. 23:11; Jer. 50:34; Lam. 3:58). Job's thinking seems to have

progressed somewhat from the thought of a mere impartial arbi-

trator (9:33) to a legal advocate who could present his case and

vindicate him as innocent before God (cf. 16:18-21). Conse-

quently it appears unlikely that Job conceived of his "kinsman

redeemer" (or legal advocate) as being God Himself. Rather, by

using the legal metaphor Job expressed his conviction that he

would be vindicated as innocent (which in an earthly lawsuit

might require a vindicator or legal advocate).

The point in Job 19:25 is that just as there is a vindicator in an

earthly lawsuit, so in Job's dispute with God there must also be one

who intercedes for him, but it does not make clear who this vindica-

tor might be. Accordingly, what we have here is an inexact state-

ment: Job wishes to express the conviction that he must be acquit-

ted in the end, and he clothes this thought in the figurative

language of the lawsuit: someone must vindicate him to prove his

innocence.⁷⁴

However, in light of Job's legal plight in which God is both

judge and legal opponent, Job realized that his hope for an

impartial judge was futile. Thus Job could only wish for someone

to hear him (31:35). (Possibly the concept of an impartial judge

[or arbiter) is continued here.)⁷⁵

Elihu, who stated that he would be an impartial witness

(32:21-22),⁷⁶ suggested that if there were an angel, a Cylime (a

mediator or intercessor), available to Job to plead for God's

clemency, actually this "mediator would be on God's side, inter-

preting God's will and leading Job to repentance rather than

defending his integrity (33:23-30).⁷⁷

The legal metaphor often employed heretofore in the Book of

Job rarely appears in the Lord's speeches (38: 1-42:6). This rare

usage