static-aside-menu-toggler

Techniques of Debate in the Dialogue of Job

Techniques of Debate in the Dialogue of Job

by Gordon E. Christo

Dialogue and debate make up much of the Book of Job. There is debate/dialogue between God and Satan, between Job and his friends, and between God and Job. The dialogue between Job and his friends occupies 24 of 42 chapters in the middle of the Book of Job, sandwiched between the prologue/epilogue and the monologues, and is the focus of this article. The five “logues” are arranged in chiastic sequence (ABCBA), highlighting the dialogue.

A. Prologue (Job 1 and 2)

B. Monologue (Job 3)

C . Dialogue (Job 4–27)

B. Monologues (Job 28–42:6)

A. Epilogue (Job 42:7–17)

Readers have questioned whether the dialogue is actual or contrived. Some believe that the whole story is a parable,1 and view Job’s three friends as “dummies set up to be knocked down.”2 The dialogue does seem to be “conscious artistry” rather than transcripts of spontaneous responses,3 and the debate appears “tilted in Job’s favor.”4 However, the fact that Job’s name and city are recorded suggest that he was a real person,5 and that the Book of Job is not merely a theological argument expressed in rhetorical form. Both the prophet Ezekiel6 and the apostle James7 uphold Job as an exemplar. Also, “the literary genre of the parable does not tolerate such long expositions.”8

The dialogue between Job and his friends was not planned. When the friends first arrived, their motive was simply to console and to comfort him. For one week they sat with him in silence (Job 2:13). Though Job is recorded as speaking first, he did not begin the dialogue. His lament is a monologue, with no portion addressed to anyone. However, it provides a launching pad for the dialogue, as it furnishes his companions with statements to which they can respond.9 All the subsequent speeches until chapter 27 are prefaced with variations of “Then Job answered and he said,” which simply means “he replied.”

THE PROTAGONIST

The name Job is similar to the Hebrew word ’oyeb, which means “enemy.” However, in the story, Job is not the enemy, but the protagonist. Rather, Job accuses God of treating him like His ’oyeb “‘enemy’” (Job 13:24, NIV) and His tsar “‘adversary’” (Job 16:9, NKJV).10 In reality, God upholds Job as His champion in the prologue (Job 1:8; 2:3), and as His “‘servant’” in the epilogue (Job 42:7, 8). Therefore, we may view God and Job as on the same side throughout the dialogue in spite of whatever Job may have uttered.

In the end, God surprises everyone by commending Job for speaking what was right about Him (Job 42:7, 8). In fact, Job seemed to deserve a rebuke for speaking wrongly about God.11 He had declared God short sighted (Job 10:4–7) and blind to injustice (Job 9:22–24) and called Him a bully (Job 9:17, 18, 34; 13:21) and a despot (Job 9:12; 12:17–20). God does not clarify what Job said that was right. However, more important to Job was what he did not say. Satan had claimed that Job would curse God, but he did not. Rather Job maintained his integrity and loyalty to God throughout his ordeal (Job 2:3, 9; 27:5; 31:6).

THE ANTAGONISTS

Eliphaz means “My God is gold.”12 The meaning has no significance for the story, so it most likely was his real name. Eliphaz is the leader of the three friends. In a culture where age was honored (see Job 32:4, 6, 7), he speaks first and longest. He may have been old enough to be Job’s father. He claims, “‘the grey-haired and the aged are on our side, men even older than your father’” (Job 15:10).

Eliphaz has rich resources of wisdom and employs a variety of arguments to prove his points. He speaks in the plural, as though he represents the others: “‘We have examined this, and it is true’” (Job 5:27, italics supplied), and refers to “‘our side’” in the dialogue (Job 15:9–11). When God speaks to the friends in the epilogue, He addresses Eliphaz, saying, “‘I am angry with you and your two friends’” (Job 42:7, 8).

The name Bildad has no obvious root or meaning, so that is probably his actual name, too. Bildad is a conservative who leans more on tradition than his own wisdom. He is likely the closest in age to Job, and their exchanges at the heart of the dialogue are the most caustic (Job 18 and 19). However, his final speech is only six verses long (Job 25:1–6) and is a rehash of what had been said earlier, giving the impression that he is running out of arguments.

Zophar, like the name Zipporah, refers to a twittering bird (the root from which we get the word “sparrow”). His tweets lack the profundity of his companions. The context indicates that Zophar is probably to be considered if not the youngest, then likely the least important because he speaks last and least. He altogether forfeits his turn to speak in the third round, suggesting that his resources have dried up.

THE MOTION

A motion to be debated needs to be balanced so as to provide both sides ample arguments. The motion for this debate is proposed by Eliphaz, the first speaker. (In this debate, the antagonists are speaking for the motion, and Job speaks against it.)

Right after the preliminaries, Eliphaz presents the doctrine of retribution, first in positive terms via a rhetorical question, and then in negative terms:

“‘Consider now: Who, being innocent, has ever perished?

Where were the upright ever destroyed?

As I have observed, those who plow evil

And those who sow trouble reap it.

At the breath of God they perish;

At the blast of his anger they are no more’” (Job 4:7–9).

This doctrine taught that the righteous would prosper and the wicked would suffer, in proportion to both their relative righteousness and wickedness.13 In fact, the Bible presents this as a general truth. Psalm 1 proclaims that the righteous will flourish like a tree planted by the water, and in contrast the wicked are blown away like dry chaff. Proverbs 1 ends with a promise that those who listen to God will live in safety, while the wicked will suffer calamity and disaster.

If Job had been an unrepentant sinner, there would have been nothing to debate, but Job was righteous, and this provides a subject for the debate.,sup>14 The doctrine of retribution did not allow for exceptions, so Job feels confused because he knows he is a good person, and yet is suffering intensely. In what is labeled “dramatic irony,” both sides are ignorant of the role of Satan.

TECHNIQUES OF ARGUMENTATION

Eliphaz crafts clever arguments that are seemingly irrefutable. He begins with flattery, followed by criticism (Job 4:3–5). It is difficult to reject criticism after one accepts a compliment. Eliphaz then asks a rhetorical question (vss. 6, 7). Rhetorical questions are not normally disputed. While the expected answer to the rhetorical question, “‘Should not your piety be your confidence?’” (vs. 6) is disputable, all characters in this debate, including Job, subscribe to the doctrine of retribution, and so—as expected—it goes unchallenged. Then Eliphaz quotes a proverb, “‘those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it.’” As Eliphaz claims (vs. 8), such proverbs are based on observation and usually represent accepted wisdom (Proverbs 11:18; Galatians 6:7).

Eliphaz also claims to have had a vision (Job 4:12–17). Any message that comes through “divine revelation” would seem indisputable. Eliphaz continues with an affirmation prefaced with “‘I myself have seen . . .’” (Job 5:3). Affirmations announce undebatable points. It is difficult to contest what another has seen and experienced.

In his second speech, Eliphaz attacks Job’s character rather than his arguments, questioning his piety (Job 15:4–9). He then resorts to argument from statistics, though he has no proof that all the old and wise men are on his side. Taking advantage of his age, he assumes the role of teacher, saying, “‘Listen to me and I will explain to you’” (vs. 17). Embedded in his lecture is a caricature of a pudgy-faced obese man brandishing a shield and shaking his fist at God (vss. 25–27). By cartooning, Eliphaz hopes to force Job to abandon his position as silly.

Bildad waits for his turns impatiently. His first two speeches open with “‘How long . . . ?’”15 In the first speech, he goes on to describe Job’s words as a blustering wind, a lot of hot air (Job 8:2). In the second, he follows up the “‘How long’” (NKJV) by asking Job to be sensible (Job 18:2). Bildad puts down his opponent in an attempt to make him cut short his speeches. Possessing limited wisdom of his own, Bildad appeals to the faith of the fathers, i.e., tradition (Job 8:8–10). He, too, employs a rhetorical question (vs. 11), and a caricature—that of a foolish man leaning on a spider’s web for support (vss. 14, 15), to describe Job’s folly. Bildad recites a poem about a well-watered plant that is uprooted and withers (vss. 16–19), which by analogy draws attention to Job’s withered body, something Job cannot dispute (Job 16:8; 19:20).

In his second speech, Bildad argues from extremes—abandoning the earth and moving rocks. Bildad hopes to persuade his opponent to give up his appeal as preposterous (Job 18:2–4). The rest of his speech (vss. 5–21), is one long threat calculated to terrorize his opponent. He paints frightening pictures of a wicked person caught in a variety of traps, experiencing a series of calamities and disasters. Bildad’s victim, after suffering being eaten alive by disease, is marched off to the king of terrors (vs. 14). Bildad strikes hardest at what is important to an Easterner facing death—Job has no remaining offspring to carry on his name (vs. 19).

Bildad’s third speech is just five verses long (Job 25:2–6), very short for one who earlier could hardly wait for his turn to speak. He recites a poem that is a rehash of Eliphaz’s first two speeches (Job 4:12–21; 15:14). Unable to add anything significant, he ends with an unhappy picture of a human being as a maggot and worm before God (Job 25:6).

Zophar opens with a rebuke, labeling Job not only as a “‘talker,’” but also as one who engages in idle talk (Job 11:2, 3). Zophar then resorts to a straw-man fallacy. While Job has claimed to be innocent and has pleaded not guilty (Job 10:7), he has never said he was pure in God’s sight, as Zophar claims (Job 11:4). He, too, attacks Job rather than his arguments, insinuating that he is like the son of a dumb ass (vs. 12).

Zophar devotes much of his second speech to the fate of the wicked, just as Bildad ended his second speech. In fact, Zophar borrows a number of images from Bildad’s speech (Job 20:26–29; cf. 18:15–21). Zophar should have spoken for the third time after Job’s response to Bildad (Job 26), but he apparently has nothing more to say.

THE CONCLUSION OF THE DEBATE

The decreasing length of the friends’ speeches indicates they have nothing new or more relevant to add. While many might take this as a sign of defeat,16 the friends have not conceded yet. Elihu says that the three men “stopped answering Job because he was righteous in his own eyes” (Job 32:1).

Job, on the other hand, has much more to say. Right after Bildad’s truncated final speech (Job 25:2–6), Job taunts him as unhelpful, ineffective, and useless (Job 26:1–4). At the end of Job’s response, he may have glanced at Zophar, and, sensing he had no intention to take his final turn, “Job continued” (Job 27:1).

Job’s concluding address to his friends (Job 27:26) includes important proclamations:

  1. He insists that God has denied him justice;
  2. He declares most adamantly that he will never, as long as he has breath, admit that the friends are right;
  3. He asserts that he will not surrender his integrity and loyalty to God as long as he lives; and
  4. He affirms his righteousness with a clear conscience, vowing to never let it go.

Job makes it very clear that these are non-debatable. It is not surprising that the friends cease to answer him.

Finally, Job recites a poem on the fate of the wicked (Job 27:13–23), which seems to defend the doctrine of retribution that thus far he has been attacking, leading some critics to think this might actually be Zophar’s third speech. However, closer examination reveals a difference. The friends’ doctrine of retribution taught that punishment came before this life ended (Job 15:32). Job describes here a punishment that comes after death. It is the wicked man’s offspring who will not have enough to eat (Job 27:14). The plague will bury his survivors (vs. 15). The wicked men’s wives are widows (vs. 15). The wicked man dies wealthy, but the just and innocent will enjoy his possessions (Job 27:16–19).

Job still maintains that the wicked prosper in this life. However, about the ultimate justice of God, Job has never had any doubt. In the heart of the dialogue (Job’s middle speech in the middle cycle), Job asserts a faith in his Redeemer, and confidence about the final judgment (Job 19:25–27). Like Job, when we are overwhelmed by burdens or have to suffer unfairly, we may find peace by placing our trust in our Redeemer.

Gordon E. Christo (PhD in Old Testament, Andrews University, Michigan, U.S.A.) is retired in Hosur, India. For 20 years, he taught at Spicer College (now Spicer Adventist University), Pune, India, in the departments of religion, English, and speech. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Recommended Citation

Gordon E. Christo, "Techniques of Debate in the Dialogue of Job," Dialogue 36:3 (2024): 14-17

NOTES AND REFERENCES

  1. A disciple of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini asserted that Job was just a mashal (“parable”). See Rabbi Moshe Eisemann with Rabbi Nosson Scherman, “An Overview: Iyov The Man and Iyov the Book,” in Job: A New Translation With a Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources, ArtScroll Tanach Series (Rahway, N. J.: Mesorah Publications Ltd., 1994), xxi–xxii.
  2. Norman Whybray, Job, Readings: A New Bible Commentary (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 9–11.
  3. Daniel J. Estes, Job, Teach the Text Commentary Series, Mark L. Strass and John H. Walton, gen. eds. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2013), page 4, believes it is not so clear, and that it does not matter whether the book is actual history or a parable.
  4. Roland E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, and Esther, The Forms of Old Testament Literature Paperback Series, Vol. XIII (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1981), 20.
  5. This was the response of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini to his disciple. See Rabbi Moshe Eisemann with Rabbi Nosson Scherman, “An Overview: Iyov the Man and Iyov the Book,” in Job: A New Translation With a Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources, xxi–xxii.
  6. Ezekiel 14:14, 20, states that even Noah, Job, and Daniel could by their righteousness save only themselves and not any family member.
  7. James 5:11 (KJV) refers to the patience of Job. NKJV and NIV use the term endurance.
  8. A. Van Selms, Job: A Practical Commentary (Text and Interpretation) (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1985), 11, 12.
  9. An Akkadian text dating to 1000 B.C. referred to as the “Babylonian Theodicy” also has a dialogue between a sufferer and his friend. The sufferer begins with a lament and also closes the dialogue. See W. G. Lambert, “Babylonian Theodicy,” ETANA (Electronic Tools and Ancient Near Eastern Archives): https://etana.org/node/582.
  10. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references in this article are quoted from the New International Version of the Bible. Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. Scripture references credited to NKJV are quoted from the New King James Version of the Bible. Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
  11. C. L. Seow, Job 1–21, Interpretation and Commentary (Illuminations) (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2013), 87.
  12. The Hebrew word paz (“gold”) occurs in nine places in the Old Testament, including Job 28:17 and Psalm 19:10.
  13. John H. Walton, Job, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012), 39.
  14. Edouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, Harold Knight, trans. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), lxxxiii.
  15. The Hebrew term ‘ad ’anah (“until when”) (Job 8:2; 18:2) is translated “how long” in the NLT, ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB, and others.
  16. Lindsay Wilson, Job, Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2015), page 27, refers to the “legal system in which a party loses by running out of relevant arguments to add.”

https://dialogue.adventist.org/3997/techniques-of-debate-in-the-dialogue-of-job

Techniques of Debate in the Dialogue of Job https://blog.safeliz.com/images/articles/art-H94.jpg#joomlaImage://local-images/articles/art-H94.jpg?width=1200&height=800 SAFELIZ BLOG