Theology in the Raw - Everything You Need to Know About the Book of Job: Dr. Ellie Paley

Episode Date: July 13, 2026

Request a free copy of When Faith is Forbidden here.Dr. Ellie Paley received her Ph.D. from Cambridge University, where she studied the book of Job, and she’s currently pursuing a post-doc at Bar-Illan University in Israel. Ellie literally memorized the entire book—in Hebrew…in 6 months! Job is her gig and she knows more about the book than anyone I know. In this episode, Ellie gives a master class on the book of Job, discussing its date, the setting, the meaning of “The Adversary” (hasatan, or Satan?), the purpose of the prologue (Job 1-2), the content of purpose of the dialogue cycle of Job’s 3 friends, the purpose of the transitionary wisdom poem of Job 28, the role and function of Elihu’s speech and why she thinks he’s a rather presumptuous young buck who thinks he knows better than he really does, God’s response to Job, and how the book resolves in the latter chapters. We end by reflecting on Job’s contribution to the question of theodicy and the problem of evil. To follow Ellie’s work, check out her Substack “Compulsively Contemplative” here. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

I think it's so important that believers have done their spiritual exercise in the book of Job. Like, the Book of Job is a thoroughgoing workout. It is not easy. It is not comfortable. But I think utterly necessary to have the spiritual stamina that we need for a lifetime of inexplicable pain and unanswered questions. Hey, friends, welcome back to another episode of Theology to Rha. My guest today is Dr. Ellie Paley, who has a PhD from the University of Cambridge. where she studied and wrote her dissertation on the book of Job.

She's also about to pursue a postdoc at Bar-Elon University in Israel, where she'll be continuing her research and studying modern Hebrew and also teaching a few classes. So Ellie is an expert on the book of Job. I absolutely love this conversation and learned a ton and I know you will too. So without further ado, please welcome to the show for the first time, the one and only, Dr. Ellie Pending. Ellie, it is so good to have you on.

So I want to begin by saying a little story. A few years ago, I was at Tyndale House in Cambridge. And I remember hearing a rumor, a legend about some PhD student that had memorized the book of Job in Hebrew. Is that legend correct? And are you that legend? This feels like a guilty hand-race moment as charged. That legend that was floating around the halls of Tyndale is in fact well-founded. Though I can't guarantee every legend floating around Tyndale House is warranted.

But that one I can verify. That was what I called my doctrine of scripture experiment that I conducted during my first academic year of the PhD. I mean, that I don't, I told my kids last night. I was like, hey, I'm interviewing the scholar who memorized the book of Job and Hebrew. And the response was, no, she did. That's impossible. And then they said, why would she do that? But they were like, they're like, that's just, they kept thinking about it.

They're like, no, that's not possible. How, how, why and how did you do that? Yeah. The short of the how is that I just had a, though I had never done any memory project of that caliber, I had this firm conviction that a combination of discipline and enthusiasm could go a long way. So it really amounted to, in terms of the mechanics of it, just being relentlessly repetitious. So I, as I memorized it in a little under six months.

And during that six months, I thought you're going to say like six years or six months. No, just under six months. And I, during that time, would review Job every single day. I don't think there was a date. Maybe there was one or two in there that I wasn't reviewing. And I would also go over new material that I had learned every single day until I was positive that if I moved it to an every other day chapter rotation, I wouldn't lose it. And then eventually the furthest I would go was every three days to review a given block of

material. But you can imagine that as the chapters accumulated, I had quite an elaborate system of rotating chapter review because I couldn't go over 35 chapters every day when I'm in chapter 36. You know, so I had to kind of construct my own organizational system, which itself was something to remember as I got further into the book. I mean, that's, that's, that's like a chapter a weekish. No, more, no, it's more than that, right? Because 42 chapters, 42 weeks, you said six. So, I mean, that's a lot every day, like chunks every day. Yeah. For reference, I started off doing about four to five new verses a day, but by the end, it felt that my Hebrew absorbency had increased.

So I was memorizing like eight to ten verses a day by the end. So then, yeah, every couple of days, I'm getting another chapter, which is a lot to stay on top of. But it did feel like my brain was sort of expanding its capacity to retain Hebrew text. Why did you do this? I mean, I could probably guess. I mean, it's God's word and you want it in your heart, you know, whatever, but like, is that, do you just wanted to like know Job inside it out? I mean, well, yes. However, the sort of having God's word in your heart that, I think that trope is the perfect way to frame it because it seemed like the most unintuitive text to memorize as far as like, oh, let me be spiritually nourished and edified. Because, okay, for most of the book,

you have a protagonist railing against God saying some of the most audacious things to an about God that we have recorded in Scripture. And then for another huge portion of the book, you have these four conversation partners with that protagonist who are saying things that you don't even know if it's sound advice or not. So I'm like, is this even good theology? TVD in the middle of the book, right?

You kind of have to make your way to the conclusion of the book to then try to sort your way through how you would evaluate all of this verbiage that's just been spewed. So that being said, I knew this was probably one of the least intuitive text in scripture to memorize, but I just knew in principle, if this is in scripture, then I assume that my being confounded with the book of Job is on me, not on the text. And so let me just eat it and see what happens. I mean, just put it inside of me, pray, and see what the Holy Spirit might do as I then also go through

this rigorous process of research because now I'm absorbing copious amounts of secondary literature, trying to sift through all of the opinions about what unearth this book is saying and why. So I think as a researcher, I wanted to be very careful that my starting point for research on the biblical text was a really sincere grappling with the biblical text. And this was the sort of full send best as I know how way to. grapple with the text. It's one way to do it. Yeah.

And then also I, yeah, I just knew that there was a lot of spiritual formation opportunity here. And I felt insistent that doing a PhD in Job ought not to feel easy. If it started to feel comprehensible and straightforward to me, then I was probably not listening to the book of Job very well. And so, yeah, just basically wanted to open that door for the Lord to do. what he would in that process. And it turned out to be super academically useful along the way. Can you repeat any, like a few sentences off the top of your head in Hebrew? Which chapter do you want? Really? Just like, I'll want me just start with chapter one.

The first couple of verses of chapter one. Sure. I mean, it'sh, he wash, and he wash, he'sh, heirle, and he was ledu lo, seven and three months. And he came he mackney he's seven alfet son

or three ofl ghamalimalem of chemette and five hundred cemetons and abode. And heah haehaehah who is a good from all bin a

bedum. Oh my gosh. Are you, do you speak modern Hebrew? Is that? No. No.

At this point, not. I do not. However, since my husband and I are hoping to move to Israel this summer. We're both going to try to be working on modern Hebrew.

My husband's actually a lot farther down that path already than I am. So, yeah, I've just, you know, in the past month and a half, started trying to listen to an intermediate Hebrew podcast and do a little bit of reading. But no, I definitely do not have spoken fluency at this point. Wow. Because your accent sounds like you know, like Hebrew, Hebrew, like modern Hebrew. Well, thank you. I'm working on it.

but no, definitely not. Yeah. Okay, so you did your PhD dissertation on the book of Joe, is that right? What was your interest in Job? Why did you want to do that? And then what was your specific focus? Sure. So the sort of tagline that I've used to describe my journey into Job is that I self-identify

as a reluctant Job convert. As in it was certainly my fault that I did a PhD in Job. I did submit the proposal. However, I went in with no small degree of trepidation surrounding the Book of Job and really ended up in that text largely because I was trying to prioritize who my supervisor would be. And that what had begun as a larger pool of supervisors started to narrow as you send out the spray of emails. Anyway, as matters turned out, I found myself corresponding with Catherine Dell at Cambridge and felt for a number of reasons that she would be a good, supervisor fit, and she was excellent. But then I needed to come up with some idea that would be sufficiently within her area of interest. And again, I'm like, well, I have a high view of

scripture. Theoretically, I can study anything in the Old Testament and be pretty well assured that this would be good news. However, I, in my own, my own folly and the Lord's wisdom chose Job as the seed of my idea, which I thought when I sent her my proposal, she would just shred it and tell me to go away and I would tuck my tail and make my way out the door. But to my surprise and my terror, she emailed me back and said, this looks great. If you get in, I'll supervise you. And I thought, oh dear, what have I done? So that genuinely was my entry into Job and it really was this process of coming to grips with what on earth this text is, my own intimidation with its difficulty on every level, both textually, lexically, syntactically,

literarily, theologically, just, yeah, name your angle on the book of Job and it's challenging. So I really had to, yeah, grapple with that. And I sort of dealt with imposter syndrome before I landed in Cambridge, which was a good thing. And then needed to just square up with this book. and soon came to find, A, this was so kind of the Lord that he gave me the opportunity. Like, as in I really needed this in spiritual formation to have a long and hard look at the book of Job and to be shaped by it. And also, my goodness, this is profoundly necessary for God's people.

So I am so thankful this is in the scriptures. What was your dissertation topic? Yeah. In short, essentially does the book of Job result? and if so how. So I tried for as macro level an approach to the book as I thought Cambridge might let me get away with because I really wanted to think about how this giant hermeneutical puzzle fits together. You have all these literary sections which are very clearly demarcated and all of these different

voices. But how does this book communicate together meaningfully? and there are particularly some features of the text near its conclusion that to many scholars have seemed either to directly contradict what's come before or to be sort of at odds with each other. So, for instance, just to give an example, God comes out of the whirlwind. Finally he answers chapter 38. First thing he says to Job is who is this who darkens counsel with words without knowledge. four chapters later, he turns to Job's friends and says, you know what, I'm anger with you because you did not speak well, unlike Job who did? You're like, hang on, how did God just

rebuke Job speaking over here and then commend it over here what's going on? So that's just one example of many features that have made the topic of resolution in Job of an interesting one and a fruitful one. I want to get back into that. And really, there's so much theology in Job that I've always wrestled with. A lot of people wrestle with. Well, love to tease that out. But let's start, let's go back to the beginning. Let's start 101.

Give us the setting of the book. Who wrote it? If we know, when was it written? Why was it written? Just kind of the basic stuff you would find in like an introduction to, you know, to the book. Great. Yeah, yeah. So the shorthand way that I typically describe the setting of Job is it happened a long time ago

in a land far far away. So you can think of the book of Job as being set. essentially in the time period of the Patriarchs. So he almost seems as if he's Abraham-esque, right? He measures his wealth in his droves of animals and how many servants he has. And he lives to be this old man who has a lifespan relatively similar to that of the Patriarchs. Even the last line of the book, he died old and full of days. That's used for Abraham and Isaac in Torah. So anyway, just a few examples of numerous features in the book that kind of situate him in that period. Now, that being said, Job, the, okay, so Job as a book, is very clearly situated within the framework of Israelite faith in their covenant God.

And as we start moving through the book, I can give some examples of how we see that to be true. So we should think of this as being written by an Israelite or a Jew and definitely situated within their thought world. However, Job himself is non-Israelite. So in saying a land far, far away, basically, I'm just indicating he's not Israelite. He's from the east and his friends are likewise depicted as Easterners. Now, the reason why that is significant, I think, is because those in Edom or just generally from the east kind of across the Jordan are a associated in the Old Testament with a wisdom tradition. So this will be particularly important as we come to the conversation between Job and his friends. You have basically the best of the

best human attempts to provide an answer for Job. These are three witty old wise men who are very eloquent and highly educated coming from an Eastern tradition renowned for wisdom. They're, as I like to say, the tenure professors of the day. So if these philosophy and theology profs, can't answer Job than who could, that kind of thing. So, okay, Book of Job is set a long time ago in a land far, far away. What that says in terms of the dating of the book is almost nothing. So it's really interesting. As I've been in different church settings, the two most common questions slash comments

that they get on the book of Job are, one, this assertion, Job is the oldest book in the Bible, isn't it? Right, right. And second, do you think Job was a real person, historical person? These tend to be high-profile questions. To the assertion that Job was the oldest book in the Bible, I say, oh, fascinating. Tell me more. I didn't know that.

Basically, this book is evades attempts to date it. I mean, suggestions have ranged all the way from the 11th century to the second century BC. Okay. In terms of when it was written. Think of it this way. Like if I, just because it has a setting around the time of Abraham, does it mean it was necessarily written then? Like I could take on the language and the setting of a Shakespearean work and write in that

way in order to set it in a particular period and I don't necessarily have to be living then. So the setting of the book of Job isn't necessarily determinative for when it was penned. And there's been a longstanding tradition and scholarship of actually saying, no, this is a really complex editorial work with different sections of the book being attributed to different editorial layers. It's called redaction over time. Now, that has, you know, as many theories as it has proponents in terms of what exactly that ordering would be. And the fact is the only form of the book that we have is the the one that's currently bound, you know, in the covers of your Bible. So we don't actually have manuscript evidence that it was ever existing in separate layers. But I would say predominantly now, and again, we can always take a, you know, a pinch or a spoonful or, you know, a bucket full of salt, however much we want with scholarly consensus. But now I would say predominantly people would date it post-exile. Exilic or post-exilic. And, and, you know, and, and, you

And if pushed with my back against the wall and forced, I'm pretty comfortably agnostic on the dated book. But if forced, I would go exilic post-exilic largely because of how the book of Job interacts with other texts in the Old Testament. It seems to make most sense to me that whoever is compiling the book of Job is aware of other texts in the Old Testament and is deliberately interacting with them. Yeah. So I am always trying to eat healthier, but between travel, work, family, and life in general, there are a lot of days when just standing in the kitchen for an hour just isn't happening. So I've tried different meal plans before, different meal services, but the one thing that always stands out is the ingredients list.

Sometimes it's full of industrial seed oils and other ingredients that I would rather avoid. That's one reason why I've been personally enjoying forkful. Forkful delivers chef-cooked ready to eat meals. without the seed oils using high-quality ingredients like grass-fed bison, wild-cut salmon, and other premium proteins. They show up at your door, ready to heat up, and there's no meal prep, no cleanup, and they're on the table in under three minutes. I literally just had the jumbalaya, and it was fantastic.

It was seriously amazing. Same with the creamy chicken with spaghetti squash. It was super good as well. They also have options for just about every eating style, gluten-free, dairy-free, keto, plant-based, low-carb, and even G. and GLP1 friendly meals. So, explore the plans and the menu of fresh, ready to eat meals at forkfulmeals.com slash t-I-T-R and use the code T-I-TR to get 50% off your first order.

That's forkful meals.com forward slash T-I-TR and use promo code T-I-TR for 50% off. Thanks to Forkful for sponsoring this episode. Creatine is one of the supplements that I've taken most consistently over the years. Now, like a lot of people, I originally thought it was, you know, mostly to help you build muscle and get you super jacked. But there's growing research on the cognitive benefits of creatine as well. But here's a catch. You can't just take any creatine. It has to be high-quality creatine, which is why I really like momentous signature spec creatine.

They've gone way beyond just slapping a label on a tube and calling it premium. It's manufactured in a pharmaceutical facility and put through a six-stage testing process. verified by four independent agencies. So you're getting dramatically fewer impurities, tighter heavy metal limits, and screening for things like microplastics. It also mixes super easy. So you can, you know, just mix it in with your orange juice or your other, you know, morning beverage. If you want to try Momentus signature spec creatine, head over to livemometus.com and use the code TITR for up to 35% off your entire first order. That's live. momentous.com promo code t-itr for up to 35% off live momentous.com promo code t-itr.

That's what I always heard. Well, not always, but like once I was entered the scholarly world that the book of Job resonates with this kind of crisis of exile, which raises all kinds of theodicy type questions. It fits with books like lamentations, ecclesiastes, and other wisdom literature of this sixth and fifth century. Is that, so that is that, is that, is that, I capture that right, why people have put it there? And do you seem to find some merit to that? Or is it more complicated than that? Yeah. I think yes and no. I think it is a bit more complicated than that. I've actually just been working on something related to this. I think it's, I think it's an overheasty simplification to say Job equals Israel in exile or Judah in exile,

either one of them. For the main reason that the entire premise of the book of Job, is that this has all happened to him. The Hebrew word is Khinaam for no reason. As in what the circumstances that come crashing upon him do not correspond in any retributive judgment kind of way to the sort of person that he is. Because per the opening of the book, he is the paragon of piety.

Okay, he is the real deal. This is not a sort of front of a nice guy. No, this is a genuine Godfair with real integrity. and all of this is happening to him in a way that is without warning, without explanation. Whereas exile, on the other hand, for Israel and Judah, is precisely the opposite. It's very clearly for reason of their chronic covenant breach, right? Israel and Judah are within this covenant with God that they've had since Sinai. They agreed to it.

God has sent prophet after prophet after prophet to warn them, exile, disaster, destruction is coming if you do not turn. And they are stubborn until the end. And so finally, the culminating curse of the covenant arrives. So that's, I think, the main and really insurmountable difference that doesn't allow us to make a really straightforward equation. However, the book of Job is, I just think, so clearly dialoguing with the Sinai covenant. And even with how the prophets depict exile and return from exile for the people. So it's hard for me not to see the book as deliberately engaging with those texts and those ideas, even if I don't think you could say Job equals Israel. Can we determine or suggest a date based on the kind of Hebrew? Like I heard

that it reflects kind of a Persian-era form of Hebrew. You're the one to ask. I have no clue if that's true enough. Yeah, so the funny thing is that the language of the book can be used to argue in opposite directions for the dating. So on the one hand, there are certain archaic features of Hebrew, so older features of the Hebrew language that are incorporated into the book of Job, which could make it look older. However, there's also quite a high frequency of Aramaic words and Aramaic morphological features. So parts of words, how words are formulated. And that has often made some people say, oh, that looks later than, because sometimes in the Hebrew Bible, later texts have a higher preponderance of Aramaic. So I, for one, I've heard people caution against using Aramaic alone

as an arbiter of date. And for the old features, that could also be a stylistic feature, because it's not consistent all the way throughout. It would almost be like if I were writing something and I started sprinkling it with these and vows, right? It would situate my work in an older period, and that could be a stylistic decision, as well as the Aramaic, because these guys are Easterners.

So that could be more of a dialectical choice on the part of the author in order to make an even more convincing characterization for these figures. One last thing I'll say real quickly just about how historical the book may be. That could be a much longer conversation. Oh, was it? Okay. Yeah. Oh, how do I phrase this succinctly? A much longer conversation could be had.

in short, I will say that it's really difficult to determine to what extent the book may be historical. So could it be the case that there was a sort of shell of a story about a righteous person named Job who went through a lot of suffering? And that really happened. And then a later person took that well-known story and developed it into the complex literary creation that, that we now have in the Bible as the book of Job. Yes, that's possible. So it could even be, for instance, that when Ezekiel 14 is referring to Job, it's the only other place where Job's referenced in the Old Testament,

we don't quite know, like, what version of Job is that talking about? Is that just referring to a story about Job that everybody knows? Does it imply that there's the full-fledged book of Job at that point? And Ezekiel is saying, with that reference, Here's a stamp of, you know, historicity. So I think this question also causes us as the reader to examine our own presuppositions and say, well, what do I mean by history when I say that? And what would an ancient person have understood history to me? And where does literary stylization meet with the telling of history?

It's a very, very stylized book. So if I were to get to the point of saying there must have been a scribe, they're dictating every word exchange between Job and his friends, like that would approach comedy to have that presupposition because this is some of the highest register Hebrew poetry we have in the whole Old Testament. And I at least am not typically at my wittiest when I'm in the depths of agony. You know, like that's not usually when I pull out my best stuff. So, like, very clearly, it seems to be a really brilliant literary composition. Does that mean, though, that Job never existed? Not necessarily. But it, I think we have to acknowledge that there is a pretty generous space there where we have to say,

well, I don't exactly know to what degree. Yeah. This is historical. When I used to teach Old Testament survey, the half hour I'd spend on Job, my apologies. It was one semester. One semester of, what, 49 books. It was tough. I did the 12 minor profits in like, you know, the last day of class. But I would describe it as like a parabolic history or a historical parable or something like that. It's exactly what you said. I was actually hoping you would confirm what I said so I don't have to email my students and apologize for leading them astray. But that's exactly what I said. Like clearly the book is stylized in a certain way, very poetic. It's not history like Joshua or judges, but could there have been a historic person, Job? Sure. Are all the details, even chapter one and two and, you know, 40 to 42 are those historical details,

word for word, accurate in the modern sense of the term? You know, I don't, I don't know. Like, did Satan or the adversary waltz into the throne room and, you know, and God's like, hey, what's up? where you've been. Oh, yeah, I've been wandering around looking to persecute key people, you know. I don't know, like that whole throne room scene, is that like a video camera recording of what happened or is that more the author taking literary liberties to explore the mind and God and how he interacts with evil? I don't know. Yeah, yeah. Help us there. Oh, you, let's go. Let's go to This is where the action gets going. Oh, man. Yes. So the divine turn to receive. The first thing that I think it's really important for an English Bible reader to consider is that maybe, maybe just maybe, when you see Satan with a capital S in chapters one and two of your English translation, that may not necessarily indicate the arch enemy of God that you think of from the New Testament. So if I were to be translating those chapters, I would just say the adversary.

I'm even happy to capitalize that A. But point is, I think, oh, and teaching Job a number of times, I've seen that I think that translation of Satan almost makes readers inordinately fixate on the cosmological questions. Like, hang on, how is Satan waltzing into God's presence? Are they having this conversation about me over coffee right now? Like, how is this all unfolding? And I think really the adversary is little more within the context of the book of Job than a plot kickstart in order to instigate the narrative tension.

And then notice who disappears. The adversary disappears after the prologue. What does Job go on to say? Job goes on to say, God, you have sataned me. He says in chapter 16 and in chapter 30, using a related. form of the same root satan. He says, God, you have satan me. Point being, the prologue of the book of Job is setting us up to grapple with a number of questions, one of which is, is it credible, is it possible, is it even worthwhile to go on being a God fear when your circumstances are

making you feel, leaving you in a place where you feel like God himself has become your enemy? And what Job will be chiefly concerned about as the book continues is, who is God to me in my suffering? Even in the first round of disasters, after all that, he doesn't say, you stupid Caldeans, you stole my camels. He doesn't say anything about these human agents or these natural agents that were responsible for killing his children and taking his wealth. he goes straight to, right, the Lord gave, the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord. He knows straight away the buck stops with God, as in God is emphatically responsible for what happens in his world.

So I think it's important that basically we take away the permission we may initially feel just to make ourselves, to sort of placate ourselves by blaming Satan. You know, like, oh, well, if wicked Satan wasn't in the ruin, then none of this would have happened to poor Job, and one day God's going to crush Satan. And yes, do I believe that God is victorious over all the powers of evil? Yes and amen, of course. However, I think the real pastoral potency of the book of Job really lies in its insistence on the fact that we need to grapple with this question as God fears, who is God to me?

in my suffering. Does the evidence from the real world cause this whole covenantal framework with God to break down? Like what expectations am I really allowed to have for the life of faith and who this God will be to me, regardless of what my circumstances are? Interesting. And I think it's so important for a truly persevering commitment to God throughout a lifetime that basically that believers have done their spiritual exercise in the book of Job. Like the Book of Job is a thoroughgoing workout. It is not easy. It is not comfortable.

But I think utterly necessary to have the spiritual stamina that we need for a lifetime of inexplicable pain and unanswered questions. Across the world, Christians are paying a high price simply because they follow Jesus. Some are threatened. Some are beaten. Some are in prison or separated for. from their families. But even in the face of persecution, they remained faithful. In the book, When Faith is Forbidden, Todd Nettleton shares 40 true stories of courageous believers he has met face to face, Christians who continue to follow Christ no matter the cost. Through this book,

Todd wants to share their stories with you so that you can be challenged and encouraged and reminded that God is at work in some of the world's darkest places. That's why Voice of the Martyrs would like to send you a copy as a free gift. So to request yours, visit v.com.org in the raw. That's v.om.org slash in the raw. Get your free copy of when faith is forbidden today and be encouraged by the faith of Christians who are standing firm around the world.

That's amazing. So just to make sure I understand what you're saying, so the role that the adversary in Hebrew, ha satan, so Satan, Satan, Satan, Satan, Satan, Satan just means adversary. So is that a personal name for Satan? Or just some kind of adversary. The role that that adversary plays is in a sense to prevent the reader from blaming evil, bad things, you know, on evil agents.

Like he comes in a story, but then it immediately shifts to, regardless of whatever agents are involved, God is ultimately responsible. So for the rest of the book, it really is a theodicy wrestling with God and evil. Would that be? And so, yeah. Yeah, I think so. Or at least you may even begin the book thinking, oh, I can blame the Chaldeans or I can blame Satan or whatever. But actually, if you understand it as the adversary and you notice the disappearance of the adversary. And then you even just pay closer attention to the prologue. And you notice the prologue is first two chapters.

You notice, for instance, who is it that even draws, calls Job to attention in both rounds of that heavenly dialogue scene. It's God. Who is it that sets the authoritative boundaries for what the adversary can and cannot do? It's God. Who is it who says explicitly in chapter 2 verse 3 to the adversary, you incited me to destroy him, Khinaam, for no reason. This is by God's own admission in chapter 2, verse 3. And the prologue is supposed to make you feel that this is gratingly unfair. Because Because Job is the person who turns from evil, and it's the Hebrew word ra. And what comes on him? Ra, bad, comes on him.

He says at the end of the first round of disasters, may the name of the Lord be blessed. Yehi Shem adenadeh, may the name of the Lord be blessed. And we think this is just textbook, right? We make praise songs out of this. The Lord gives, the Lord takes away, blessed and be the name of the Lord. But then in the very next chapter, the adversary comes, before God and the end result is that Job is struck with grievous boils. Bishchhina, me kaffra glove at Kodkhododon.

Now, the reason why it's actually important to have that in Hebrew is because that Hebrew text is lifted exactly from one place in the Old Testament. It's lifted from Deuteronomy 28, which is a catalog of covenant curses. In other words, the man who, who just blessed God now looks as if he's been cursed by God, even though we know that he is the last person on earth who would deserve a covenant curse. Because he is, as I said, just the poster child for piety in the first two chapters. He's blameless, upright, fears God, turns away from evil. It's a more glowing description of personal righteousness than anyone in the Old

Testament. And so you're supposed to feel with Job, hang on, this is so unfair. And at the same time, there's no way of letting God off the hook. Like, God is responsible for what has happened to Job. And one more step is that the prologue sets you up not just to empathize with Job, which you do, but in a way to identify with God. Because you as the reader have a unique vision. vantage point. Job and the rest of the characters don't listen in on what goes on in the heavenly assembly. But you, as the reader, do. It's like you eavesdrop on the conversation that goes on in heaven. And so in a sense, that allows you to identify with God in his omniscience. So you know, or at least you think you know, why all of this is happening to Job. And I think

that deliberately sets you up as the reader, almost into being duped along with Job and his friends from most of the book, into thinking that explanations are the most relevant thing to have and to seek after. You sort of buy into the fact that there is a why and we deserve to have a why, that explanations are the relevant matter at hand. And you watch Job and his friends be preoccupied with that for most of the book. And you're sitting there thinking, oh, but I know. I know, right? I know. And then one of the first words of God from the whirlwind, who is this who darkens counsel with words without knowledge? And what does he not give in explanation? And so then maybe you as the reader are set up to be a bit put in your place alongside Job. But we are getting ahead of ourselves there.

I do. Yeah, we'll come back to that. And I'm going to ask you if Job was written by a Calvinist because this all sounds very, you know, John Piperish. But let's go back and talk about the dialogues. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know how you want to go, you know, this is the, you know, 80 plus percent of the book. These dialogues between Job and his friends. What's the content?

What's the role? What's the function of these dialogues? Yeah. Is it a mixture of good advice? Bad advice. Is it all bad advice? How does it function within the flow of the book? Yeah, absolutely.

So just to break down that unwise, wieldy middle. And to make explicit the fact that it's written in poetry, right? So the first two chapters are written in prose. Then from roughly chapters, well, chapter three verse one until 42-6, almost all of that is poetry. And then for the last 11 verses of the book in chapter 42, we switch back to prose for sort of a narrative bookend. Well, at least a prose bookend for the book. But in this unwieldy poetic middle, we have several subsections. So the first main block is a conversation or maybe debate between Job and the three friends that have come to comfort him right at the end of chapter two.

So from chapters three to 27, we have three dialogue cycles between Job and his friends. And in brief, the friends are all the way for the retribution principle. What is the retribution principle? The retribution principle says basically that actions and consequences are commensurate. They correspond. If you do good, you get good. If you do bad, you get bad. But what Job's friends do, essentially, is they make that principle absolute.

There's no such thing as an exception. It always applies in every individual case. And they reverse it because they see bad. They see disaster in Job's life. So they deduce a cause, oh, you must then have done something in order to merit all of this calamity that's come on you. And what's more, as Job continues in this heated exchange with them, they think, well, Job, the obstinate way that you're behaving right now, when you should just be coming meekly back to God, the fact that you keep rebuffing what we have to say insisting on your innocence only proves all the more that you've got an attitude issue, buddy. And you really must have done something then if this is how you respond. Your integrity must have been compromised.

So this is their general position. They seem to start a bit gentler. Honestly, I think even from Elifaz's first speech in chapters four to five, not helpful. But in tone, it's a bit gentler. And they tend to escalate in intensity of emotion as we progress from chapters three to 27. Job, for his part, if he knows anything, knows that he does not deserve what has happened to him. So the entire rhetorical thrust of the friends, he pushes back on every time. I do not deserve this.

I do not deserve this. Therefore, I don't need to have penitential prayer come back to God meekly. And in fact, if I were to do that, friends, that would be compromising my integrity because that would be a lot. and me just trying to get my good stuff back. But actually, what Job is so concerned about, as I alluded to earlier, is his sense that God himself has turned against him. So this is very personal for Job. And he increasingly uses this legal paradigm to imagine,

oh, if only I could drag God into court with me and give this accounting of my innocence. And then finally, when Job stops talking in Chapter 31, It's this extended oath of innocence in which at the end he says, let the Almighty answer me. I've laid out all of the evidence for my innocence. Now, God, burdens on you to show up, and either you prove me wrong that I wasn't innocent. And so this is all warranted. Or, God, you must admit that you've wronged me, that I don't deserve all this. But for Job, he is distressed not just by what has happened, but the fact that God,

God has been silent this whole time. So he's saying, hey, I'm here calling out to God. Why is heaven silent? Why is God not answering? I used to have this dialogue with God. We used to be close. The counsel of God was on my tent. I used to call and he would answer me. These are the sorts of things he says in chapters 12 and in 29. So he's really longing for this resumption of conversation with God, but is predominantly assuming that that would happen in a court of law. And he uses plenty of very visceral language to depict God as his enemy. Stuff that makes us go, wait, hang on a second. I know Job is righteous, per the prologue.

However, has he lost the bet? You know, as of now, did that just cross the line? And now he's done what the adversary said he would do. Now he's cursed God to his face. Was that the moment? You know, when he said God's slashing open my kidneys? Is that fair game or not? So we're sitting there as the reader trying to evaluate what Job and his friends are saying.

And for people who have found the book of Job tiresome, aggravating, disorienting, or all of the above, I usually say perfect. That is exactly how you're supposed to feel. Because, remember I said, who are these friends? They are the best of the best attempts to answer Job, and they use some of the most sophisticated Hebrew poetry to do it. So we even watch them pulling out all the stops in this battle of wits. But what is the result? Okay, now here's where the structure of the book really matters. I said we have three dialogue cycles.

The first two are perfectly symmetrical and orderly. Job, Elifaz, Job, Bilad, Job Zofar, is the order for the first two. When we come to the third, however, we get Job, Elifaz, Job, tiny five-verse speech from Bildad, Job, Job, and no Zofar. So we're like, what happened? Either someone passing the text had an oopsie along the way and was like, oh, just left off Zofar's page, bummer. Or the author just forgot to write a third speech for him. I think probably none of the above. I think this is actually deliberately showing us that the friends have run out of words.

In other words, we have the very best attempts to answer Job, human attempts, and they exhaust all of the answers they could possibly offer. Job is not satisfied, and they have literally run out of words. And so we've heard Job calling out for this audience with God, and now we see just how desperately we need divine answer to break into this impasse. So it's like we've rung dry the sponge of human contribution. If these three can't do it, then who can? And we come to chapter 28 then, which is this poem on wisdom that seems to come out of nowhere.

And different views on how this contributes to the book, I take it as the narrator's voice, reentering into the book, and basically providing commentary on what we've just witnessed. because this poem describes the quest for wisdom as if it were like mining. So humans have this unique ingenuity. We can procure precious materials from under the earth and bring them to light. No other creature can do that. However, when it comes to a search for wisdom, which is infinitely more valuable than any of these precious materials that we could mine under the earth,

no matter how deep and wide we dig, there is no searching adequate enough for humans to be able to find wisdom. Until you get to the very last, oh, go ahead. Real quick. So Job 28, is it functioning to critique the previous three cycles or is that? I think to sort of, yeah, interpret them or provide commentary on them, almost to make explicit what we've hopefully already observed in that the friends ran out of answers. Like there was this massive search for wisdom underway and we watched humans.

come up with nothing. And then in the very last six verses of chapter 28, now all of a sudden, oh, there's one who knows the way to wisdom. And there's one who sees it, who can search it out even, who used it at the time of creation. And in the very last verse, who even communicates it to humans, this is, of course, God as the one who has a corner on comprehensive wisdom. And what he communicates to humans is, okay. Okay, human, here's your wisdom. You want wisdom? This is what it looks like. Fear God and turn away from evil.

Right. So in other words, this is your wisdom lane. Don't expect to have comprehensive understanding to be able to search out all of the workings of what goes on. However, you have a very real participation in the wisdom by which God created and sustains the world. And your participation in wisdom comes only through relationship with the creator. You only participate in wisdom. insofar as you are willing to hear God's revelation of wisdom and then live in it when he says fear God and turn away from evil. And so this is kind of almost like a deep breath. You get some commentary on the preceding chapters. It sort of now positions us all the more, okay, we are going to need God to answer, which is the very thing that Job, the God fear, has been desiring.

Real quick. Before I move the next section, so as we're reading those three cycles, his three friends are stuck in this retribution framework that isn't, it feels very Deuteronomy. I mean, it's not unbiblical. It's just incomplete. And then I'll have you comment on that. But yeah, should we, are we supposed to resonate with Job's response, his pushback? Because it's kind of challenging saying. Yeah. Like everything he's saying is kind of. True. And he's kind of angry at God, but those are, I don't know, like, it's how he is feeling based on this seemingly injustice that's happened to him. Yeah, how should we feel about the three friends and Job during those first three cycles? Yeah, that's a huge, hugely important question, particularly because of what you've just mentioned, the relationship or not with Deuteronomy. And I think we really are supposed to be hearing this book in light of Torah. Like I said, even from the, second chapter, Job looks like he's under covenant curse. And Tor itself, right, has a retribution schema in some sense.

If you obey God, hear the blessings. If you disobey God, hear the curses, you can expect. But I would say the friends are not so much the same as Deuteronomy, but they're representing like a misappropriation of Deuteronomy. So as we listen to the friends, we realize that we need to ask, more questions. Okay, so since we have this retribution schema in the Sinai covenant, does that mean that that's really the bottom line of relating with God? Does that mean then that now I have licensed to predict and interpret every single activity of God in the world? Could I even then say that,

oh, now God owes me? Because I've done the good thing. So God hand over the blessing. Does it mean you can diagnose what has happened in every person's life? around you because you have the retribution schema? Or are there other factors? Is there more to God's character, more to God's justice that we need to grapple with? Is there more to the limits of human understanding and control that we need to grapple with? So I think the friends, because they initially sound pretty orthodox and pretty reasonable, there's something about them that, especially when Job's saying such dice,

things. The friends could feel more safe, but we've read the prologue, and we actually know that Job's right when he says that he's innocent. So we can't sit fully comfortably with what the friends are saying, and I think that's supposed to provoke us to ask more questions about the underpinnings of the covenant and the God who undergirds it. Okay. That's so helpful. Yeah. Appreciate it. So that's at least how I framed it. Some scholars would just say, you know what, the book of Job is this sort of angsty voice in the canon that's a late, late player in the game and just starts fighting with Deuteronomy and just disagrees with it. You know, I don't go that direction, but some, some would because they would just say the friends are Deuteronomy and the book of Job shreds

them. Okay. So that's one direction one could go. But again, I go different one. Okay. Let's get to the post him. So 20, I guess, how do you tell us? Where do we go next? Yes. So we'll, we'll, dance our way very quickly through 29 to 31. This is basically Job's last stand. So in chapter 29, he's reminiscing on the good old days when everything went so well. He had honor and community. He was close with God. Chapter 30 is now, I am the lowest of lows. So I went from the highest of high to the lowest of lows. And then 31, I've already mentioned this chapter before, but this is the extended oath of innocence in which Job details his righteousness in terms that are really borrowed from Torah. He looks like someone who has kept the law to the tea, not just even in an external way.

He's even talking about his motivations and even saying, you know what? One of the markers of my righteousness is the fact that when I sinned, I didn't conceal it. I confessed it. So I've encountered, I'll just say this as a brief aside. Many times I've encountered people when I'm teaching who are like, wait, but Roman says that there's no one righteous. All of sin and fall short of the glory of God. How do we have Job preaches? I'm like, no, no, no.

The point is he is a person of genuine integrity. And he even says himself, one of the marks of my integrity is the fact that I deal with my sin in repentance as I'm supposed to when it's there. So he's even talking about his motivations. He talks about how he treats his workers. talks about not lusting. He catalogs this detailed description of his righteousness. And then at the end is like, okay, God, I'm throwing it to you. Onus is on you. Now either prove me wrong or maybe backtrack. It's like, woo, this is, tension is now at fever pitch. Let the almighty answer me.

We're like, it's the moment. And then what on earth? We have six chapters of Elihu. We're like, Who on earth is this dude? Where did he come from? And why is he talking? So from chapters 32 to 37, we have a new interlocutor, a new conversation partner and to the picture. And this is a really curious chap because we were introduced to the friends all the way back in chapter two, but we never knew there was a fifth man on the court here ready to play. We're like, who let him in? So Elihu sort of comes out of nowhere, and that makes him really polarizing in interpretation.

You tend to love him or hate him. You either love him and say, he says everything that is essentially the same as what God is going to say. In fact, he prepares Job in an essential way to encounter God's answer, and that's why God never rebukes him. Or you say,

Elihu is so rubbish that God just sweeps him off the page and carries on and we forget about him as soon as God's answer finally comes in chapter 38. Because the other thing is that he's never evaluated later in the book. So God will address Job and then the friends in the last chapters of the book. But Elihu is never evaluated. So we're really left as the reader to determine what to make of him. Now, I'll just show my cards quickly. I am in the latter camp of finding Elihu to be rubbish. I think he's, I think he really plays a legitimate and important literary role in the book. So I want to make that clear. I'm not saying take him out and the book would be better. But I think he has negative characterization. So the whole point is that we desperately, desperately, desperately, desperately need God's answer at this point. And the narrative momentum has been building in this way. And so Elihu, to me and to many others, comes off as this aggravating interruption. this exasperating interruption, that we're ready for divine answer.

The last thing we need is one more human thinking, if only you let me chime in, I could sort you out, Job, and provide the conclusive answer. So Elihu goes on to say, I will be the neutral arbiter between these parties. I've listened in on everything. And so I am perfectly positioned to be the answerer. He says, let me answer because, by the way, it's folly to think that God will. Don't expect God to answer you. You think that would be a good thing and you think he actually would? Well, good thing for you, I've come along. You know, and I can sort everybody out. So he, I think comes across as quite presumptuous. And he's notably young and notably angry. So Job and his friends were the sort of old guard. In case you thought they were representing one perspective monolithically as the old guys. Well, here, now you've got the young book. He's like, if the friends are the the tenured professors, he's like the, he's like me. It's like the PhD student.

He's like, aren't you glad I came along and I'm going to sort you all out? Well, just just highlighting his age in a culture where wisdom came with being older, younger people. It's like you're out of control passions and you're ambitious and like there's that old, young kind of dichotomy. So the fact of these young is is kind of a critique that this guy comes off as kind of that snotty student that thinks he knows better than. Yeah, I think so. And he's notably very angry. So there are just a few verses of narrative introduction for him in chapter 32. And it says four times in five verses that he burns with anger at both Job and his friends. And I think it will be conspicuous when God answers Job that God never expresses being angry with Job. I think that's really important actually,

because Job had assumed this was an expression of God's anger. That was the way that he multiple times had described God's perception of Job and his way of acting towards him was out of anger. And Elihu was certainly angry with Job. And God never talks about being angry with Job. Interesting. But God will be angry with the friends. In Chapter 42, he will burn with anger, the same expression.

Okay. And the friends that does not include Eliehu? Yes. So Elihu is never, or Elihu, I think it kind of depends if you're British or American. I'll say, whatever you say, I'll say. Elihu. Yeah, so he's never called a friend of Job. Typically people speak of him as the fourth friend, but he's actually never called A Rea, a friend of Job. And I think that may have something to do with his literary role in the book.

So here's the last thing I'll say about him so we can move on. I think that Elihu is like the reader being written into the book. And this helps to explain why he's not mentioned anywhere else. Why he's not called a friend of Job. He's a little bit more aloof from the plot and he's not mentioned elsewhere. I think it's because he's like the reader who also has had this third party vantage point listening in, who thinks they have special knowledge, right? Elihu because he claims divine inspiration.

we because we think we've listened in on the heavenly council so now we know. And oh, if only I could chime in and offer the more nuanced theological contribution that everyone's been missing, then then Job could have the answer that he needs. Also, Elihu is the only one with an Israelite or a Hebrew name in the book, which I think is also telling. So anyway, I think there's also a bit of a pun on Elijah going on. so his name Elihu in Hebrew, if you change the vowels and keep the consonants, you would have Eliyahu, which is Elijah. Think of it. Elijah is the frontrunner for the Lord at the end of Malachi. He's carried away in a seira, in a whirlwind, in kings, right? And here is Elihu positioned right before God appears.

And when God comes in a whirlwind in a seara, who's off the scene, Elihu. But I think here it's a bit of an irony. Like he's the ineffectual frontrunner. He's sort of an anti-climax. He slows the narrative action. We're expecting God's answer. He's like, no, I'm going to answer. And then right when he finally shuts up, the very thing he said wasn't going to happen, happens.

And there's God speaking. This is fascinating. I mean, I know a little about the book as it is, but I never thought about it that way. That's really helpful. I think that's a fun and fairly credible connection. I think with Elijah. So it's almost like the reader. And it's interesting you're saying the reader is kind of like identifying with them, but

then realizes, oh, shoot. Yeah. It's like a mirror to our own arrogance or assumptions, you know. Yeah, presumption to know. And then what is it that God comes right after in the whirlwind speeches? Basically, Job, what do you know and what can you do? These divine whirlwind speeches, there's so much we could say about them. But I think essentially what they're underscoring are the inherent limits of knowledge and power that humans possess.

And God does this in a really artful, gorgeous tour of the cosmos in which he basically keeps gesturing to everything that is emphatically beyond the boundaries of humans' experience and control and understanding and comprehension. So he's always gesturing to what is, you know, at temporal extremes or spatial extremes. So at the beginning of time or in the depths of the sea or the heights of the heavens, when he starts talking about animals, he's talking about all the ones that are undomesticated, living in wild places, over whom God is exercising control and knowledge, and he's ordaining their existences in just the way that is right for them. And humans have not a clue about it. So there are all these rhetorical questions that are used, I think, not just to grind Job into the ground.

Job, you stupid human, how come you don't know the way to the dwelling of light? I don't think that's the point there. The point is, yeah, grapple really honestly and really viscerally with all of these things that you clearly don't know and can't do and let that push you again to a point of saying, well, who does? And I think the one other dimension I want to just highlight here is that God is also, I think, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, undermining the adversarial framework that Job had been operating in. Remember, I said Job is this perception, God is against me. Even his name, Iov, is probably a pun on the Hebrew word for enemy, Oyev. If you just flip the middle two letters, Yov goes to Oyev. So Job feels he's been enemy by God. God and he's imagined being in combat with God or facing off with God in a court. And in these whirlwind speeches, God sort of makes a satire of both of those or is sarcastic about both of those. Like, okay, Job, you want to meet me in battle?

Let's go. Our first battle is going to be one of questions. See if you can field these questions that I'm flinging your way like arrows. And if you can, then maybe you're a match to tell me that you can rule the cosmos instead of me. But if not, maybe let's reevaluate how you're positioning yourself in relation to me. And actually notice that the way I govern creation is not one of tyrannical malice, which is how God had often construed the way that God behaves towards him and towards creation as a whole. The portrait of the world that God paints is emphatically good and brimming with life.

There is order. There is justice. It is also just decidedly. outside the bounds of what humans can manage and handle and understand. So it's like God is saying, Job, I'm not like you. You need to grapple again with the creator-creature distinction, right? I am God and you are not. But Job, I'm also not against you. And I'm not against the world. So it pushes ultimately to this question, a crisis of decision for both Job and the reader. Job, are you willing to trust the God who answers you but not on your terms? Are you willing to trust God in order to basically rule what you can't control and to understand what you cannot know? Will you be willing to acquiesce in relating with this God who doesn't owe you anything, including explanations? So he will answer you, but he will answer you. in the way that he chooses to answer you. And he's actually chosen to answer not why, but who, who with a capital W?

And that's actually, in God's wisdom, the answer that you really needed Job, right? Because Job wanted to know, who is God to me? And here is God actually showing up, actually stepping into the conversation of the book in order to answer his suffering servant. Right? Job is still on the ash heap. He's the lowest of low, and God answers and speaks to him, just like the friends did. So I think it's both profoundly dignifying and profoundly humbling.

And those things, I think it's good and right that they should be held in paradox when there's a real relationship between a creator and a creature who are ontologically not like each other. Yeah, yeah. I want to come. I have two practical questions, but before I get to those, and are you okay on time? I've taken you just over an hour. Yeah, yeah. No, I'm good.

before I get to those, I want to hear, does the subject of your dissertation, does the book of Job resolve itself? I mean, he gets all his stuff back. Well, I mean, kind of. His family died, but he gets a new family and more animals and all these things. So tell us about chapter 42 in the conclusion. What's this doing within the function of the book? Yeah, yeah. Okay.

Ooh, there's so much here. At one point, I wrote 10,000 words on 42, 7 to 9. I'm going to really try to read back here. But I'll just in brief. So Job, when he responds to God out of the whirlwind, 426 is really important and a really challenging line of Hebrew text. But it's critical because, okay, how has Job received this answer from God, which is an answer but not the answer he had expected or even hoped that he would receive?

And generally English translations say that Job is repentant. I despise myself and repent on dust and ashes, something like that. This is just a thumbnail for the interested who can go and explore this further. But I think with others that it's much better rendered along the lines of Job being comforted. So he has been visited by the friends in order to comfort him, the same Hebrew word naham there from Chapter 2. he's been dissatisfied with their comfort, but now upon encountering God, verse 5, I'd heard of you by the hearing of the ear, now my eye has seen you, therefore I reject and am comforted concerning dust and ashes, where dust and ashes are emblematic of his previous state of mourning, in which he's been since

the prologue. And now it is upon encounter with God, not the ineffectual explanations of his friends, that he is now ready to leave behind these symbols of mourning, which are like an identification with the dead, and re-enter the land of the living. So return to normal society. He's been comforted by God's appearance. So that is, again, just a quick thumbnail there. Then when we go into the epilogue,

another surprise, this book just keeps hitting us with unexpected developments. God has spoken to Job from the whirlwind. now he speaks to the friends and our ears are really pert because we wondered for, you know, 25 agonizing chapters what to make of all of their disagreement. And now here's God weighing in. Okay. Again, English translations, barring one that I've seen, conventionally say something like you have not spoken of or about me what is correct or the truth as my servant Jope has. That's why God's angry with the friends.

However, again, I think, oh, for a host of reasons, this is so much better understood as God critiquing them not for the content of the speech, but the direction of their speech. God says, you have not spoken to me readily or reliably as my servant Job has. And you go, oh, hang on, actually, Job at least over 50 times has spoken directly to God in second person address and throughout. and throughout he has been focused on encountering God. That's what he's been longing for. So God is saying Job's orientation is fundamentally right. He was speaking to me and intent on encountering me. Friends, you ought to have been speaking to me for Job rather than to Job for me.

So don't presume to defend God and make that turn you into an adversary against your friend that you've come to comfort, but actually be an intercessor, be an ally. Then what happens right off the back of this is who ends up being the model intercessor? Job does. Because God says, okay, now friends, you go ask Job to intercede for you so that you don't get clobbered by my impending divine wrath. And so now they are desperately dependent on God's good opinion of Job. Now they have to acknowledge, here's the servant of God, the one who,

despite all the things he was saying was God's servant all along, God recognizes his servant as the one who's been speaking to him. And so now he's the eligible intercessor to intercede on behalf of these friends. And it's while he's interceding that his fortunes are restored.

And the whole ending of the book then in a lot of ways mirrors the prolog where a lot of the losses from the prologue are reversed, except everything is escalated. So the plot of the book is like a lopsided you, where it starts really well. You don't think it could be improved at all in the first five verses. Then it goes as far south as it possibly could, short of Joe being dead. And then he ends up at a place even better than where he started.

And this ending, oh gosh, it's so funny because it's a happy ending, but so many modern readers find it to be a bad ending. Like it could feel too cheap. Like, come on, is this not just popping up the prosperity gospel or something or proving the friends right? That's how I felt. I've almost not liked it. For one, it's like, he got his family back. Well, yeah, he kind of didn't. First of all, the second of all, doesn't this reaffirm retribution theology?

Yeah. He got all the stuff back and more. And, you know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So help us under. Yeah. Yeah.

So a couple things here. First of all, I think it's really important that we, while the epilogue does resemble the prolog and we need to note those similarities. it's really important that we read the epilogue in narrative sequence as it appears in chapter 42. When we do, we notice a few important things. For one, Job is satisfied while he's still on the ash heap. Right. In 42-6, if you take that as an expression of his comfort, right, it is truly encounter with God

and not the prospect of material prosperity that is what satisfies him. And this is really at odds with comparable or parallel. righteous sufferer text from the ancient near east. That like Job is really just concerned about who is God to me. And that satisfies him. God never promises that he's going to receive any of his wealth back. So it's not like he's interceding for the friends on the assumption that while he does, everything will come back.

And then, oh, okay, this is like a bit of an Elie-Paley thesis. I almost said my maiden name, an Ellie Paley thesis. My, whole, my theory is that the epilogue of Job is deliberately styled as an end of exile. So there is a lot of language and imagery in the epilogue. I'll send you the article present. Yeah, I would love to read. There's a lot of language and imagery in the epilogue that resembles the way that prophets in the Old Testament talk about exile being over. And so I think you see that then this general.

at the end of the book is precisely that. It's generosity. It's not repayment. This is an expression of God's sort of super abundant goodness resting again on his servant. But in Job's case, again, it's not that he suffered punishment for wrong that he's done. But this is sort of signaling that the test is over, that Job is restored. And that I think it is really important to recognize in the book, while God feels, are to fear God for God's sake, full stop, right? You fear God for God's sake and not for your own sake. At the same time, it is not stupid to be God fear. In other words, fear of God does, in the final analysis, lead to abundant life and flourishing. And if we read the epilogue of Job along with James, which I think is a pretty safe bet, James reads the epilogue of Job eschatologically. He says in chapter 5, be patient, wait for the coming of the Lord, look at the farmers, look at the prophets, look at Job. You've seen the steadfastness of Job, you've watched him persevere, and then you've seen the tell us, the end of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.

And notice James doesn't interpret the epilogue as an expression of God's justice, as if God owes Job, oops, sorry Job, I stole from you, let me pay you back now. Right. Right. This is an expression of God's abundant compassion and mercy. Yeah. And this is eschatological for James. So you, in other words, pastorally, right? You don't say to the suffering God fear, like, don't worry, there's a book in the Bible that tells you once this is over. You've got a Maserati and a mansion, honey. Like, hang on. Or like, your first husband was awful. Don't worry. Prince Charming's on his way.

Like not necessarily all of the losses that we sustain in this life are sort of realized and escalated measure in this life, just like they were for Job. However, God fears be absolutely certain. God answers. God has answered us climactically and chiefly in the person of Jesus Christ, right? When wisdom actually like takes on flesh, God answers not from the whirlwind but from the womb and steps into the story. assuring us that actually the end will be so much better than the beginning, even more than we could ask or imagine. And it will be worth it. So persevere, right? Hang on for the coming of the Lord. I think that's ultimately reading it Christianly where you land. I love that. That's so helpful.

Practical questions really quick. Yeah. Problem of evil. And then I want to know how you. I love how that's a practical question. Let's just, okay, yeah, let's start there that I got another maybe more practical question. But like, if God is good and God is all powerful, why do bad things happen to good people? A lot of people have said, I don't know if this is correct anymore. Like Job is kind of the closest the Bible comes to addressing that question. Unfortunately, the answer is God is God you're not. Why don't you try asking another question?

Yeah. I think basically the book of Job sort of takes the premise of Theodicy, but it doesn't answer, it doesn't answer the way that you'd expect or almost hope. So some have actually even called an anti-theodicy, as in it's kind of undoing, it's questioning the question in a sense. Largely by highlighting the vast disparity between Creator and creature and saying, you know what, humans stay in your wisdomly. Like at some point, you are going to have to face up with the fact that there are so many things that you cannot understand and control no matter how much you want to or how much you try. And so are you going to trust the God who reveals himself and says that he does and says that he's for you, not against you? And are you going to trust him in that and live within your creaturely lane or be forever in rebellion against that? that concept. How do, so it does, so the author is a seven point Calvinist. I mean,

right? Like, it, it seems to be very okay with God's agency in evil. You know, if evil befalls a city, has not the Lord done it, right? Amos, I don't, you can, I don't know if that's right translation anymore, but, you know, like, it's, it seems like the ancients had no problem with divine agency in allowing or even causing bad things that happen to good people. Like that just didn't seem, that seemed to kind of come with divine being. But today we're so troubled by that, you know? In fact, I've met brilliant scholars who basically say if there's any connection between God's agency and any kind of bad things that happen to people, then that's, we shouldn't,

that's not really who God is. know, like we're so bothered by that. I'm bothered by. Yeah. Does a book of Job, what does it tell us about God's agency and evil? Or is it just kind of assume a certain world view and play with it a little bit? Yeah, man, it's a good question. I always feel, speaking of Amos that I want to plead, I'm neither a theologian

nor a son of a theologian. Whenever the word the odyssey comes up, I'm like, I've read the philosophers. But basically, I think if we're going to take the book of Job series, and read it on its terms. We have to wrestle with its premise that God is responsible for what happens in his world. And I actually think that that note that sounded, not just in Job, but else were in the Old Testament, can even be construed as comforting, as in how much worse would it be if there were forces of chaos let loose in the world over which God had no sway? You know, like to me, as a God, that would actually be a lot more troubling than saying, you know what? Ultimately, God is mysteriously and sovereignly superintending this.

And at the same time, the real challenge of the Book of Job is, can I still say that God is good? Yes. God's control, God's power is never in question. What really becomes uncomfortable then with the Book of Job is, is God still good? Right. Job feels God is attacking me without cause, and it's making him question the entirety of his relating with God and God's character. So, I mean, therein lies the life of faith, right, to say, God, you are good. And I trust that.

And I think there is, just to come back to the prologue really briefly, I think there is something to be said for the fact that there is this adversary distancing factor between, God and Job. Like, for instance, in Deuteronomy 28, when the covenant curse comes, it says that God will smite you with boils from the soul of your foot to the top of your head. And in Job 2, it says the adversary went out from before God and smote Job or struck Job with grievous boils from the soul of his foot to the top of his head. So I think the text is doing, is taking one step to say, you know what, Job does not deserve the curse of the covenant. And God is not, his hand is not the one who's actually doing it. However, God is presiding over the assembly in which this thing was decided and God has permitted it. And we ultimately don't get to,

we seldom get to inquire into sort of the inner workings of the divine will and why that person over there was saved when they got a cancer diagnosis and that person wasn't, you know, and both people were praying. Is it like the whole thing with God inciting David to take the census? And then it's Satan inciting David to take the census. I think in Chronicles, I figure which one's which. But like, is it that kind of thing where it's like both are true. It's just how you want to look at it.

Is it God God's still presiding over the whole thing? You may use intermediate agents to do so. But he's still ultimately overseeing everything. I think so, yeah, yeah, so that you can affirm both. And really, I think we need to do our best to read along the grain of the text as best we can and to understand what is, yeah, what is the role of kind of function and contribution of the voice of this book within the canon? And so I think my concern sometimes with Job is that we can have a lot of sort of retrojected theology back into the book, which makes us miss the really important and distinctive. voice that Job is contributing to the canon. When we, you know, for instance, say like, well, God's going to crush Satan under his feet and like all of this kind of cosmological language about God's ultimate defeat of evil. Again, yes and amen. I believe that. However, we are all going

to be wrestling with inexplicable pain and unanswered questions. And I sure need to know how to approach God if I even still have any, have any way that I could go about being a God fear, if I even should be a God fear, you know, as I face those questions and those losses. Ellie, I've taken away over time. I mean, yeah, we're just getting started, folks. We're just getting started. Where can people find you and your work? Do you have a bookout or website or social media?

You've got a substack. I know that, but yeah, how can people find you? Yeah, that's basically it. That's it? I'm one of those old ladies who has to know social media profiles. So, yeah, I do have a substack that I write in monthly. That's a spray of musings, biblical, devotional, and all manner of things in between. It's called compulsively contemplative.

Compulsively contemplative. All right. Which is my sort of, yeah, catch-all. I had to come up with a way. describe being reflective as an extrovert. Anyway, so that was my title. And I write in that first Monday the month. Yeah, no social media.

But if you find my email, want to shoot me an email, I enjoy that. I like interacting with real people. Your email, I couldn't find your email. I had a message you through a timestag. I search. I even look. I asked Chat GPT, can you find me Ellie Paley's email?

And they said, it's really hard to find. That's hilarious. Okay, I need to like put it on LinkedIn. or something. Yeah, once I left Cambridge, I had a bunch of people trying to use my old institutional address to email me and that doesn't work anymore. So I'll like add it on LinkedIn or something. So people can find it. If you want to be gotten a hold of, but maybe you don't. Thanks again for being on the Algeria. I really appreciate it. This is so much fun. Yeah. Thank you, Preston. I love it. Yeah.