Job 29:1; 31:24-40

Job Finishes His Defense

29:1 Job again took up his discourse and said: (Job 29:1, NRSV)

31:24 “If I have made gold my trust,

or called fine gold my confidence;

25 if I have rejoiced because my wealth was great,

or because my hand had gotten much;

26 if I have looked at the sun when it shone,

or the moon moving in splendor,

27 and my heart has been secretly enticed,

and my mouth has kissed my hand;

28 this also would be an iniquity to be punished by the judges,

for I should have been false to God above.

29 “If I have rejoiced at the ruin of those who hated me,

or exulted when evil overtook them–

30 I have not let my mouth sin

by asking for their lives with a curse–

31 if those of my tent ever said,

‘O that we might be sated with his flesh!’ --

32 the stranger has not lodged in the street;

I have opened my doors to the traveler–

33 if I have concealed my transgressions as others do,

by hiding my iniquity in my bosom,

34 because I stood in great fear of the multitude,

and the contempt of families terrified me,

so that I kept silence, and did not go out of doors–

35 O that I had one to hear me!

(Here is my signature! Let the Almighty answer me!)

O that I had the indictment written by my adversary!

36 Surely I would carry it on my shoulder;

I would bind it on me like a crown;

37 I would give him an account of all my steps;

like a prince I would approach him.

38 “If my land has cried out against me,

and its furrows have wept together;

39 if I have eaten its yield without payment,

and caused the death of its owners;

40 let thorns grow instead of wheat,

and foul weeds instead of barley.”

The words of Job are ended. (Job 31:24-40, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from September 15, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 7, Year Two):

Job’s emphatic defense of his integrity by denial of a comprehensive list of offenses continues in the “if . . . then” oath formula pattern, but, as noted yesterday, the “then” or consequence cause varies here. “If I have made gold my trust,” he says, “or called fine gold my confidence” (Job 31:24; and he adds two more “if” clauses, another about wealth (v. 25), and one about worshiping the sun or the moon (vv. 26-27), before calling these actions “an iniquity to be punished by the judges” (v. 28a); if he had done these things–which he claims he has not–“I should have been false to God above” (v. 28b). The new Jewish version translates “and my heart has been secretly enticed, / and my mouth has kissed my hand” (v. 27 NRSV) as “And I secretly succumbed, / And my hand touched my mouth in a kiss” (v. 27 NJPS 1985-1999). Of the first line, Mayer Gruber says, “And I secretly succumbed to worship of the sun and moon. Deut. 4:19 prohibits worship of the sun and moon only to Israelites. Job, however, like Adam, Noah, Jethro, Rahab, and Ruth, is portrayed in Scripture and in rabbinic literature as a non-Israelite who is faithful to the LORD” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, pp. 1545-1546 on Job 31:27). “This verse is thus anomalous within this chapter,” he adds, which otherwise notes infractions of customs shared by both Israelites and non-Israelites.” Gruber explains the reference to a “kiss” (v. 27b NJPS 1985, 1999): “blowing a kiss into one or both palms [is] a gesture of worship frequently illustrated pictorially on cylinder seals from ancient Mesopotamia” (ibid.).

Job has not “rejoiced at the ruin of those who hated me,” he says, “or exulted when evil overtook them” (v. 29). He has not let his “mouth sin / by asking for their lives with a curse” (v. 30). He claims that he has “opened my doors to the traveler” (v. 32b), so that “the stranger has not lodged in the street” (v. 32a). Job claims not to have concealed his transgressions “as others do” (v. 33a, cf. vv. 33b, 34), and the statement breaks off. Again he expresses a desire for an impartial hearing. “O that I had one to hear me!” he says (v. 35a), adding, “Here is my signature (yv9T!, tāwî),” which Leong Seow explains as, “ ‘here is my mark,’ a reference to the X-shaped symbol that was the last letter of the Heb. alphabet in antiquity. That symbol was used as a mark of exemption from judgment (Ezek. 9:4, 6). So confident is Job in his own innocence that he asks for a written indictment from the one who would bring the charge against him” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Job 31:35). If he had the indictment (v. 35b) he would display it openly on his shoulder, “like a crown” (v. 36) and with the confidence of a prince he would “approach” his adversary and “give him an account of all my steps” (v. 37). According to Gruber, the section, verses 35-37, “interrupts the flow of the chapter, but returns to a main theme of the book” (op. cit., on vv. 35-37). On the reference to wearing the indictment on his shoulder, “like a crown” (v. 36 NRSV) or “wreath” (NJPS, MT tOrF!f3, ‘ ^a tārôth; BHS correction ‘ ^a tereth or ‘ ^a tārāh), Gruber says, “As elsewhere, Job is using a wisdom image with a twist. It is wisdom that is typically worn as adornment or jewelry (see, e.g. Prov. 3:22)” (ibid., on v. 36).

A final twofold imprecation brings this speech to an end. “If my land has cried out against me, / and its furrows have wept together” (v. 38); “if I have eaten its yield without payment, / and caused the death of its owners” (v. 39); then “let thorns grow instead of wheat, / and foul weeds instead of barley” (v. 40a, b). On the final statement that “The words of Job are ended (UMT1, tammû),” Seow sees “a play on words. The Hebrew word for ended is built on the same root as the Hebrew for ‘integrity’ [hm0!Tu, tummāh, 2:3, 9] and ‘blameless’ [MT1, tām, 1:1, 8]” (on v. 40c). So, in a certain sense, we have come full circle at this point–but we have yet to hear from God (chaps. 38-41), and we have already seen something of Elihu’s speech which follows Job’s final defense.

Acts 15:12-21

12 The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “My brothers, listen to me. 14 Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. 15 This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written,

16 ‘After this I will return,

and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;

from its ruins I will rebuild it,

and I will set it up,

17 so that all other peoples may seek the Lord–

even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called.

Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things18 known from long ago.’

19 Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. 21 For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.” (Acts 15:12-22, NRSV)

On July 27, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from September 15, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 7, Year Two), when comments on Acts 15:12-22 were repeated from July 22, 2005 (Friday of the week of the Ninth Sunday after Pentecost, Year One). The revised comments are repeated here:

The testimony of Peter to God’s acceptance of the Gentiles at Cornelius’ house (Acts, chap. 10) is quoted in detail in Luke’s report of the Jerusalem Conference (15:6-11). The testimony of Barnabas and Paul is briefly summarized. “The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles” (v. 12). It is central to the issue at hand, but the account of their success in missions to Gentiles (chaps. 13, 14) has set the stage, as it were, for; the conference. The challenge of the opponents, certain individuals “from Judea” at Antioch (15:1), and of “some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees” at the conference who said, “It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses” (v. 5), was not upheld in the decision articulated by James. By referring to Simeon’s [Peter’s] experience (v. 14), and relating it to Scripture (vv. 16-18, citing Amos 9:11-12; cf. Jer. 12:15; Isa 45:21), James articulates his decision; the Gentiles are not to be troubled (circumcised). “Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God” (v. 19). They are to be asked to respect certain rules, says James, for “we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood” (v. 20). An early papyrus manuscript (P⁴⁵) omits “and from fornication,” but most of the best early witnesses include it. A few early witnesses add “and to not do to others whatever you wish people would not do to you” (Ms. D and a few other witnesses), a negative form of the “Golden Rule” that has been compared to a saying of Hillel. The decision articulated by James has been compared to “the so-called Noachian precepts (regulations to be observed by all peoples; see Gen. 9:4-6) and the regulations for Gentiles living among Jews in Lev. 17-18” (Christopher R. Matthews, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on v. 20). James concludes his statement of the decision with what G. W. H. Lampe calls, “a very obscure verse”: “For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues” (v. 21). Lampe mentions some “implausible” meanings of this, but says it “may mean that from the beginning of the Dispersion the Law has been proclaimed in the synagogues throughout the world; therefore the Gentiles ought to know what the Law specially prescribes for them . . . and understand why these requirements are accordingly demanded of them” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 792g, p. 909, on Acts 15:21).

John 11:30-44

30 Now Jesus had not yet come to the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 31 The Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary get up quickly and go out. They followed her because they thought that she was going to the tomb to weep there. 32 When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. 34 He said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus began to weep. 36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” 37 But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”

Jesus Raises Lazarus to Life

38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.” (John 11:30-44, NRSV)

On September 15, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 7, Year Two), comments were repeated from February 21, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Seventh Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two); the comments are repeated again here:

When Mary comes to Jesus, she repeats Martha statement, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died” (Jn. 11:32, cf. v. 21). Perhaps they had discussed this together while waiting for Jesus’ arrival. Her faith was probably like that of Martha (cf. comments yesterday), but the new paragraph focuses on Jesus’ own feelings. “When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved” (v. 33). He asks where Lazarus has been laid, and when told (v. 34), he begins to weep (v. 35), calling forth the observation of some Jews, “See how he loved him!” (v. 36), and from others, a remark a bit more cynical than those of Martha and Mary, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?” v. 37).

The tomb, “a cave,” was not found empty as would Jesus’ tomb later be found (Jn. 20:1-10), nor had the stone been rolled away (contrast Jn. 20:1). So Jesus says, “”Take away the stone,” but Martha, still not counting on an immediate resurrection, warns about the “stench” after four days (11:39). Jesus gently reminds her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?” (v. 40). After a prayer (vv. 40-41), Jesus calls out to Lazarus, “Lazarus, come out!” (v. 43). There must have been amazement when he actually does come out, but Jesus merely says, “Unbind him [from the various cloths in which he was wrapped], and let him go” (v. 44). The reaction, mixed, with some who believed, but others who went to the authorities (vv. 45-46) begin’s tomorrow’s reading.

When John recorded this event some decades later, he undoubtedly retained strong impressions of what had happened. But the story, likely told and retold in his preaching, was shaped in a way designed to encourage the faith of people like Martha and Mary, and to encourage others to believe in the one who told Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will life” (v. 25; cf. 20:30-31; 31:24-25).

Raymond E. Brown offers a fascinating perspective on the way the raising of Lazarus fits into John’s presentation of the Gospel story:

From the contents of the Johannine account, then, there is no conclusive reason for assuming that the skeleton of the story does not stem from early tradition about Jesus. What causes doubt is the importance that John gives to the raising of Lazarus as the cause for Jesus' death. We suggest that here we have another instance of the pedagogical genius of the Fourth Gospel. The Synoptic Gospels present Jesus' condemnation as a reaction to his whole career and to the many things that he had said and done. In the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, we are told in Luke xix 37 that, much to the discontent of the Pharisees, the people were praising Jesus because ‘of all the mighty miracles they had seen.’ The Fourth Gospel is not satisfied with such a generalization. It is neither sufficiently dramatic nor clear-cut to say that all Jesus' miracles led to enthusiasm on the part of some and hate on the part of others. And so the writer has chosen to take one miracle and to make this the primary representative of all the mighty miracles of which Luke speaks. With a superb sense of development he has chosen a miracle in which Jesus raises a dead man. All Jesus' miracles are signs of what he is and what he has come to give man, but in none of them does the sign more closely approach the reality than in the gift of life. The physical life that Jesus gives to Lazarus is still not in the realm of the life from above, but it is so close to that realm that it may be said to conclude the ministry of signs and inaugurate the ministry of glory. Thus, the raising of Lazarus provides an ideal transition, the last sign in the Book of Signs [1:19-12:50] leading into the Book of Glory [13:1-20:31]. Moreover, the suggestion that the supreme miracle of giving life to man leads to the death of Jesus offers a dramatic paradox worthy of summing up Jesus' career. (The Gospel according to John I-XII, Anchor Bible, 29, 1966, p. 429, on Jn. 11:1-44)

I take it that Brown does not mean that John is “rewriting” history, but that, given his reference to “early tradition about Jesus” as the source of “the skeleton of the story,” he sees John as doing what all historians do, presenting interpreted facts. We have learned from our own experience that Jesus does give life, and in that there is reason for hope. “Beloved, we are God's children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is. And all who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure” (1 Jn. 3:2-3).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net