ChristadelphianBooksOnline
David Baird
The Education of Job

Chapters 1, 2 - The Testing of Job

	1:1-5	The integrity of Job
	1:6-12	The enmity of the adversary
	1:13-19	The first disasters
	1:20-22	The effect on Job
	2:1-6	The persistence of the adversary
	2:7-8	Job's illness
	2:9-10	Job's second reaction
	2:11-13	The friends come and sympathise with him

1:1-5 The integrity of Job

"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect (tam) and upright (yasha), and one that feared (yare) God, and eschewed (sur) evil" (1:1). Hence we are introduced to the historical character Job (Ezek 14:14,20; Jas 5:11).

While these notes will not follow a phrase-by-phrase approach, a recommended way to appreciate the character of Job as presented in the first verse is to analyse the Hebrew words and then construct a composite picture of him.

Job is perfect (tam). Tam is from taman ("complete") and means "whole, upright, always in a moral sense" (Ges). It does not mean that he was sinless. He was "an all-round man in the best sense of the word" (Morgan). He was complete, true, sound and blameless in his dealings with his fellow man.

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, in a fascinating little study of taman and its derivatives, writes, "Scriptures preeminent example of the tam 'perfect' man, is Job (1:1). He claimed to be tam (9:21-22) and tamim ['blameless' NIV] (12:4) and held fast to his tumma 'integrity' (27:5, 31:6), as recognised not only by his wife (2:9) but also by Yahweh in heaven (1:8, 2:3). In reference to the root meaning of taman, he was a 'finished product,' well rounded and balanced ... Job, however, prefaced his own assertions by granting, 'Though I be perfect, it (marg., he) shall prove me perverse' (9:20 ASV). He admitted his sins (7:20-21, 9:2,15, 10:6, 14:16-17), even from his youth (13:26), and ended by retracting his rash charges against God and by repenting in dust and ashes (42:6). As he explained, 'If I have truly erred, my error lodges with me'; i.e. he was not guilty of the accusations made by his 'friends' (22:6-9) and was tamim, wholehearted in his commitment to the person and requirements of God."

1:1 states that Job was yasha, which literally means "straight", and feared (yare) God - he was devout, reverencing God because he feared Him. As well as these positive characteristics he "eschewed" or turned aside from evil.

When we add the components together the "Job model" is that of a man who was dedicated to doing God's will and manifesting right ways. He was a man who was complete, upright, an all-round man in the best sense of the word. One who was straight, unwavering, possessive of sound wisdom because, out of an appreciation of Yahweh, he reverenced Him and departed from evil.

He had a large family, a "very great household (abuddah - only here and Gen 26:14 "servants"), and large herds of livestock, denoting significant wealth. He was also "the greatest of all the men of the east" (1:3). This greatness was declared in his spirituality, reputation and affluence. Chapter 29 provides a graphic portrayal of just how celebrated and esteemed Job was. And in being all this he was unquestionably an oversized target for envy: the quintessential tall poppy.

Furthermore, his family was able to enjoy the benefits of Job's greatness. Despite the apparent intimacy of the family relationship Job's wealth was such that each of his seven sons, probably unmarried, were homeowners. "Every one his day" would feast with his brothers and sisters (1:13).

What is "his day"? Some say that it referred to their individual birthdays (3:1) but it is more likely the day of the week when it was each brother's turn to have the company of his siblings. If this is the case it should be noted that there is no hint of inebriation, indecency or indolence. These are not alcohol-drenched birthday parties. These delightful family gatherings are a part of the ambience of well-being that begins the Book of Job.

As he was mindful of God during his prosperity and not just his affliction, Job faithfully fulfilled his function as family priest. He believed in the power of a mediator and deeply cared about the spiritual health of his family. His earnestness and conscientiousness are evidenced in that he "rose up early in the morning". He fears that his sons may sin and curse (barak) God in their hearts - the very sin that the Satan predicted Job would lapse into (1:11, 2:5) and his wife encouraged him to commit (2:9).

Barak actually means "bless"! Andersen suggests, "It could be a euphemism, introduced by the scribes, to avoid even reading such a horrid expression." Rotherham's marginal notes state that, "The Hebrew here was originally kalal, properly 'to curse': but that the Sopherim deliberately altered it euphemistically to barak, 'to bless.'" The Companion Bible unequivocally lists this anomaly as one of the "Eighteen Emendations of the Sopherim." The work of the Sopherim (from saphar, to "count", or "number"), under Ezra and Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from Babylon (Neh 8:8). When their work was completed the Massorites became the authorised custodians of the Sacred Text. Anyway, the conclusion of the matter is, the Authorised Version is correct.

This priestly role Job conducted "all his days" ("This he always did" NEB; "This was Job's regular custom" NIV) It was his lifelong habit. He continually reminded himself that what things he had in life were from God. What he didn't know was just how prodigiously those things would change.

1:6-12 The enmity of the adversary

Job's prosperity has aroused the resentment of the adversary who is in attendance at a meeting of the "sons of God". He is asked, "Whence comest thou?" (1:7) which is an interesting greeting possessing some intensity. It is used by Elisha to Gehazi after Gehazi had deceitfully acquired gifts from Naaman (2King 5:25), by the superstitious seafarers to Jonah (Jonah 1:8) and by Joshua to the Gibeonites who deceived him with their craftiness (Josh 9:8). It is more than just a standard opening statement. It is an inquisitive question that is genuinely attempting to ease some uncertainty. What is the Satan doing here? He obviously is looking for trouble or he has not been seen for some time. It is likely that he was once one of the "sons of God" - they know him, he knows their routine - and his response is flippant but clever. He gives nothing away and he uses terminology that is normally applied to God (2Chron 16:9; Zech 1:10,11, 4:10, 6:7). Yes, he once was religious. He throws his knowledge around as he ego-trips in front of this esteemed gathering - "Proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy" (1Tim 6:4 see also Psa 50:16-23).

The LORD makes the offer to the Satan to consider (leb) His servant Job. Leb means "the heart" and is better translated in 1:8 as "applied thy heart" (Roth). In other words, the Satan was invited by God, who knows the hearts of men (Heb 4:13), to examine his heart in the light of faithful Job (Hag 1:5 - "Consider [leb] your ways"). The LORD knew why the Satan had appeared in their midst. He knew the feelings he had towards Job. In praising Job He repeats the words of 1:1 as well as calling Job His servant - an honourable title attached to a number of the faithful including Abraham (Gen 26:24), Moses (Num 12:7-8), Caleb (Num 14:24), Joshua (Judg 2:8), David (Psa 89:20), Elijah (2King 9:36), Isaiah (Isa 20:3) and, of course, Jesus (Isa 42:1). Righteous men are rare. It may be difficult to find a few (Gen 18:22-23) or even one (Psa 12:1; Jer 5:1; Ezek 22:30) in a city, but it is possible and when Yahweh observes a good man, He is delighted (2Sam 22:20).

"'Yes,' Satan said 'but Job is not God-fearing for nothing, is he? Have you not put a wall round him and his house and all his domain? You have blessed all he undertakes, and his flocks throng the countryside'" (1:9-10 JB). The adversary resorts to that common form of slander, the "Yes, But" statement. "Yes", God exists, He is powerful and has the ability to bless and curse, "But", God has gone soft. "Yes", Job does fear God, "But", he is a hypocrite, a mercenary, he only fears God for the commercial success it gives him.

The adversary was a total cynic. He believed nothing was genuinely good - neither Job in his piety nor God in His generosity. He thought he knew enough about religious people to be persuaded that they are in it only for what they can get out of it in their present life. There is no doubt that there are people like that. But Job? To suggest that Job, contrary to Yahweh's eulogy, is a trickster, performing on a stage in order to gain the accolades of the Almighty, is to make three significant errors. Firstly, it infers that God has judged incorrectly and has been fooled by a mortal. Secondly, it misjudges Job, who remained steadfast despite the efforts of the Satan, Job's wife and his three friends. Thirdly, it is clear that the Satan has based his opinions on the knowledge he had accumulated while going to and fro in the earth. He was now a philosopher of the world rather than a practitioner in the word. He felt Job was hedged in, shut in for protection and restraint. Job's experience was limited by God. Take away the hedge, remove the protection, broaden his life experience, give Job a taste of the dark side, and he will corrupt like everybody else.

So goes the theory. The Satan was so convinced of it he confidently predicted that Job would curse God to His face (see notes 1:5 on "curse"). If he was right, then God did not have one faithful servant and religion was all a sham. "Moreover, the only possible way to induce him (and everyone else like him) to amend, was to subject a righteous man to trials that would strip everything from him except his righteousness, and so to prove the adversary wrong by showing that the righteousness of God was value in itself" (Spongberg). But was this fair? Should one whose life was dedicated to serving and trusting in God be subjected to such devastating trials initiated by Him? Yes. Not only is it unwise to question God's ways, a lesson that Job was to learn himself (40:8), He has the right to try the hearts of those who claim to be His. In doing so God may also shut the mouths of those that slander the faithful (1Pet 3:16).

God was requested to "touch all that he hath" (1:11). According to Bullinger that phrase is an example of a figure of speech called Tapeinosis. Tapeinosis is "the lessening of a thing in order to increase and intensify the same thing." Rotherham renders the word as "smite" (see also NIV, YLit). The adversary was not merely asking for Job to be touched. He wanted him to be struck hard as that would be a more sure test, although, by implication, a touch would probably be sufficient. As Andersen paraphrases, "But now, you just extend your hand and damage all his property." And this was permitted with the condition that Job be physically unscathed. Why? For the glory of God, the honour of Job and the encouragement of God's afflicted people throughout history. God knew that Job could bear it (1Cor 10:13).

So Satan went forth from the LORD's presence, not to walk to and fro, but to watch the outcome of this bizarre experiment. Like Cain he leaves Yahweh's presence with the blood of his brother on his hands (Gen 4:16). He is worse than Jonah, who fled Yahweh's presence, because not only did he reject God's judgment (Jonah 1:3) he was convinced he could prove the Almighty wrong. And he was like Judas who left the presence of Christ in a bid to destroy the greatest man alive (John 13:30).

1:13-19 The first disasters

This was the first of two sets of disasters that afflicted Job. Within it was four distinctive catastrophes:

i)	1:13-15	Sabeans - taking the farm animals and servants;
ii)	1:16	Fire from God - taking flocks and servants;
iii)	1:17	Chaldeans - taking camels and servants; and
iv)	1:18-19	Great wind - taking Job's children.

We can observe an interesting symmetry in these tragedies: Man, God, Man, God. Job's affliction was comprehensive. He was assailed by man and God, although, as we know and he at this stage didn't, God was responsible for all that came on Job. While it may be argued that what Job encountered was entirely natural and Job could have undergone similar traumas in the natural course of events, never would they have occurred with such ferocity, rapidity and efficiency.

These disasters had something about them that would have declared God's hand to Job. They differed to the normal natural cataclysm. In the supreme disaster no survivors are accounted for (Exo 14:28), but in each of these four incidents, by some remarkable coincidence, one survivor remained to inform Job.

The contrast is established in these verses as they commence with familial health and conclude with total desolation. The cycle of family gatherings had recommenced (see notes on 1:4-5) and Job would probably have completed or been in the midst of sanctifying his children (1:5) when the Sabeans struck the first blow.

The Sabeans were the descendants of Sheba and most commentators place them in the area we would refer to as Yemen. They were known as traders, never as bandits, and their incursion was far more precise than that of marauding predatory nomads as, directed by God, they were thorough, taking all Job's asses and oxen, and moved with dramatic speed. They came up from the south, far from their usual haunts and attacked when the oxen were ploughing (i.e. in the winter).

What should Job do? The normal reaction would be to gather the remaining servants and attempt to retrieve as many animals as possible. But while the first messenger was still hastily blurting out his story, a second arrived. His horror story: fire from God had wiped out the sheep and even more servants. Then while this information was hammering at Job, a sole survivor from a third catastrophe arrives, interrupting the second, to report a Chaldean invasion that killed even more servants and confiscated all his camels. Then to complete the absolute ruination of Job, a fourth messenger, speaking as the third was finishing, gives Job chilling news: his children were dead. So much for pursuing the Sabeans.

God's protective wall was removed. Job had no servants to chase his enemies and no wealth to purchase replacements. His fleet-footed camels were on their way eastward. And to push the knife right into his very soul, his children, the flock he cared for most of all, were gone.

The second calamity was "fire (esh) from God." This was probably lightning (1King 18:38; 2King 1:10-14) rather than volcanic activity (e.g. Gen 19:24) because it was deadly accurate. Its pinpoint placement saw 7000 sheep and all the servants bar one consumed. It was "of God" due to it falling from the heavens. It is likely that Job could see the Elohim working against him. This seemed to be more than just an unlucky lightning strike. The Companion Bible says that although esh is the usual Hebrew word for "fire," it should, in 1:16, receive special emphasis. It was the "great fire" or "terrible fire." It was unprecedented in the life of Job and perhaps even in the history of mankind.

Next the Chaldeans took Job's 3000 camels and put more of his servants to the sword. The Chaldeans were not noted, at this time in history, as a mob of marauding nomads. Nor did they normally venture this far from home. With the size of their haul (3000 camels is a lot of camels) and the efficiency of their operation, it was not difficult to discern that God had directed the Chaldean army to conduct this raid.

Their destructive work not only demonstrated their military proficiency, it clearly declared that the hedge (1:10) was removed. The Chaldeans would have attacked from the north. This was the normal flight path for invading Mesopotamian armies as they did not fancy crossing the desert. 1:17 specifies that they formed three bands which would have implemented, I believe, an encircling tactic. The south had already been scythed open by the Sabeans, so the Chaldeans would have dominated the northern, western and eastern flanks. Thus the protective hedge around Job was smashed down on all four fronts. And it was no good looking to the heavens for relief as they had been raining lightning bolts. It is also noteworthy that there seems to be no overlap in the disasters that struck. Sabeans are not crashing into Chaldeans. Camels are not being hit by lightning. This could indicate the dimensions of Job's holdings. His massive domain could easily accommodate sizable herds separate from each other and what was happening in one part of his territory was not known in another part.

Yahweh was intent that Job be untouched but the very beings closest to him, his "children" (1:19 LXX; "young people" RSV, NEB, JB - not "young men" AV. Job's daughters were slain as well.), were crushed by a freak wind. This was the hardest blow. The adversary would have sensed that his victory was nigh. Job would have to curse God now. Job had nothing, not even his children, and it was obvious that the wind that rose up from the wilderness was divinely directed. It would have been a whirlwind because just one residence was demolished. Of all the houses it could have struck, it smote only one. And it did not simply damage it. The whirlwind totally wrecked it and slew its inhabitants. A tragedy saved until last. The most testing of them all. The climax, if that is the appropriate word, to the worst day in Job's life. When a child dies a parent is sore wounded. To lose ten in one day, in a moment, is inconceivable.

"For man also knoweth not his time: as fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them" (Ecc 9:12).

1:20-22 The effect on Job

Job's response was magnificent. His actions were deliberate and dignified, mirrored by David (2Sam 12:20) and Hezekiah (2King 19:1-2). He stood up and did three distinctive acts:

i)	He rent his mantle (*meil). The meil* was the upper robe, an outer covering quite different to the mantle (*addereth*) of Elijah which was more of an ornamental badge of office. To rend one's garments was a sign of grief or heartbroken astonishment (e.g. Ezra 9:3);
ii)	He shaved his head - a symbol of mourning (Jer 7:29, 16:6; Mic 1:16). Shaving the head was part of the mourning rituals in Mesopotamia and Canaan, and because of its heathen associations was eventually forbidden in the Law (Lev 21:5). Job, as he pre-existed the Law of Moses, would not have sinned in shaving his head;
iii)	And he fell down on the ground and worshipped (*shachah). Shachah* means, "to depress, i.e. prostrate (espec. reflex. in homage to royalty or God)" (Strong). He humbled himself under the hand of God in a way that was exhibited by Moses (Deut 9:18) and the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt 26:39). To fall on one's face to the ground is a sign of complete humility as it is as close to the earth that a person can get. It is a completely defenceless position before a superior being, and nobody is superior to the God of heaven: He who does not need to make direct physical contact with the earth. Job recognised his true status before Yahweh.

It is important to note what Job did not do. He did not curse God. He did not lose his temper. He did not break out into any extravagant passion. He conducted himself with all the wisdom and uprightness that the Satan rejected and God expected.

And when he spoke, Job uttered some of the noblest words to be found in Scripture: "Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" (1:21). As Andersen records, "Job sees only the hand of God in these events. It never occurs to him to curse the desert brigands, to curse the frontier guards, to curse his own stupid servants, now lying dead for their watchlessness. All secondary causes vanish. It was the Lord who gave; it was the Lord who removed; and in the Lord alone must the explanation of these strange happenings be sought."

Job recognised in death he would have nothing and that the LORD had the power to remove a man's life as swiftly as He had removed Job's wealth. Job's beliefs differed to the pagans of his era who in preparation for their after-life furnished their tombs with material possessions. No, at birth he emerged naked from his mother's womb and at death he would enter naked into mother earth (Gen 2:7).

The adversary prophesied, "He will curse thee" (1:11), but Job blessed God. Despite the enormity of his trauma he was wonderfully sensible in the presence of the Almighty. This attitude was displayed by other men of old. For example, Eli (1Sam 3:18), David (2Sam 16:11) and Hezekiah (2King 20:19). It is also a posture we are encouraged to develop (Eph 5:20; 1Thess 5:18). But Job's resignation to God's will goes beyond these examples. For they received the just desserts of their wrong actions. Job does not have the assurance that what he is undergoing is a direct result of sin because that is simply not the case.

Overriding all these wondrous responses to his impoverishment, "Job sinned not nor charged God foolishly (tiphlah)" (1:22). Satan was wrong. Job did not worship God for the fringe benefits. He knew that "a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth" (Luke 12:15). All things belong to God. There is no mention of the rights of the individual, of human rights. Yet it was his faith in the Almighty that caused his agony. He loved his God with an intensity unmatched by the most devout of pagan worshippers.

He did not charge God with "unsavouriness" (Ges: tiphlah). He did not accuse God with being senselessly unjust or doing deeds that were unreasonable or foolish. Job's patience bore up under tremendous pressure. As James 5:11 says, "Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience (hupomonee) of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is pitiful, and of tender mercy."

How was Job patient? We say or we have it said to us, "Patience is a virtue," but our usage of patience is more in line with "temperance" - the control of our passions, especially frustration and anger. In the New Testament "patience" is not as passive. The Greek is hupomonee and comes from two Greek words, hupo ("under") and meno ("abide, continue, sojourn"), thereby literally meaning "to abide under". The word is better rendered as "endurance" and "steadfastness" and as Thayer explains it is "the characteristic of a man who is unswerved from his deliberate purpose and loyalty to faith and piety by even the greatest trials and sufferings." Trench writes that it refers to he "who, under a great siege of trials, bears up, and does not lose heart or courage (Rom 5:3; 2Cor 1:6)." Barclay picks up this aspect of courage and says, "In Greek hupomonee always has a background of courage."

The Apostle Peter uses hupomonee in 1Peter 2:20 where Peter lucidly spells out that there is no credit, no glory, in taking punishment manfully when one has done wrong. It is the patient, uncomplaining submission to unjust suffering, or suffering when one has done well, that is acceptable to God. Such action was championed in the behaviour of Christ. A fact that Peter is leading up to when he describes the demeanour of the suffering Messiah: "Who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously" (1Pet 2:22-23). A fact that declares Job, in these circumstances, to be plainly pre-figuring the work and character of Christ.

Why be patient? Was Job wasting his time? The New Testament provides the answers:

"Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised those that love him" (Jas 1:12 NIV);

"If we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us" (2Tim 2:12 RSV);

"In this ye greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1Pet 1:6-7 NKJV).

In other words, if we be as Job we shall enter into the Kingdom of God.

2:1-6 The persistence of the adversary

The action moves into the next round. The same verbal formulae are used, with minor variations (compare 2:1-4 with 1:6-12). The atmosphere becomes more tense.

Some time has elapsed since the first trial and the "sons of God" had reassembled. Job's adversary was present. Job's material environment was dramatically modified, but his righteousness was intact. The Satan thought that Job's righteousness was predicated on his prosperity. Wrong. Perhaps the adversary should cut his losses and withdraw gracefully. Maybe he could admit his misjudgment and indulge in some serious self-examination. No, the adversary of Job was a cold, ruthless operator. Correction was evil to him (Prov 15:9-10). He was not grief-stricken, realising he had made a mistake and deprived a righteous man of his livelihood and family. Rather he felt that his opinion was still valid, his correction a mere aberration, and he was out to prove that he was right and Yahweh wrong. "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved" (John 3:20).

The Satan has not changed. He still has the same smug response to Yahweh's question as he had in 1:7. He represents the fleshly, carnal world. As Brother Sargent explains, "The Adversary's question bears the stamp of a very human cynicism. This is the voice of shallow minds laying claim to worldly wisdom. Have they not 'gone to and fro in the earth and passed up and down it?' They are not stay-at-home simpletons easily taken in by a show of piety in those who are doing well by keeping on good terms with God ... Having no spiritual depths in themselves, such men cannot credit others with qualities beyond their own capacity."

The LORD addresses the Satan as He had beforetime, exclaiming confidently that Job "still holdeth fast (chazaq) his integrity (tumma)" (2:3). Chazaq means "to tie fast, to bind bonds strongly" (Ges); "to fasten upon; hence to seize, be strong ... obstinate" (Strong). Job was clinging to his integrity as strongly as he could. He was determined nothing would shake his loyalty to his Heavenly Father.

Tumma ("innocence" Strong, LXX) is the feminine form of tom which, in turn, is derived from taman. Taman as already discussed in these notes at 1:1, means "to be complete." Job is clinging to the commendation that commenced the Book of Job. It had not been shaken. He was tied fast, bonded strongly, obstinately attached to serving God loyally and completely.

Why use the uncommon feminine tumma? Job, in this section, epitomises the Bride of Christ. The Bride, the ekklesia, must endure the fires of testing before she can be truly purged of the dross of the world. Job in his total submissiveness, his lack of aggression, his humble acceptance of all that befell him, beautifully displayed the characteristics of the Bride. As Proverbs 11:3 (the only place outside of the Book of Job [2:3,9, 27:5, 31:6] where tumma is found) reads, "The integrity (tumma) of the upright (yasha - see notes at 1:1) shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them." The very terms used to describe Job are held up for the observation of the saints. Job is our guide. He is the upright, straightforward, innocent one. The example is ours to pursue. "Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those that love him" (Jas 1:12 RSV - see also 1Pet 1:7).

Yahweh continues, "Although thou movest (suth) me against him, to destroy him without cause (hinnam)." Brother Walker writes, "We must well remember here that the power that The Adversary wielded was God's, and not his own. It is so throughout the divine dealings; even Pharaoh was raised up for a purpose, - that God's name and power might be declared throughout all the earth. And in New Testament prophecy (Rev 12:9,10) 'The adversary ... the accuser of our brethren', has his work and the time of his 'casting down' delimited by God." Whoever did the smiting, Yahweh or the Satan, is not the issue. It must be stressed that the adversary had no power, whatsoever, of his own to accomplish what he intended.

Suth is used in a number of places in Scripture to refer to a divine action that was not without cause (1Sam 26:19; 2Sam 24:1; 2Chron 18:31). The Authorised Version's rendering of hinnam ("without cause") is severe and not entirely correct. While a number of authorities feel that it means "gratuitously" (Andersen, Young), within the context of the Prologue it best means "in vain" or "for nothing" (see Gen 29:15; Exo 21:2; Prov 1:17). It is the same Hebrew word as the "for nought" of the Satan's question (1:9). It is now obvious that Job was prepared to serve God for no material gain and that Yahweh was allowing Job to be swallowed up in, what was for the Satan, a failed experiment.

To the adversary the first round was not a true test because he had not been permitted to hurt Job himself (1:12). Now the Satan dares Yahweh to touch the skin of Job. If Job's body feels the damaging touch of God he will, claims the Satan, reveal his true character by open vituperation. He has changed his ground. He had not asked for so much the first time (1:11). The Satan was unabashed by his failure, but Job's faith had proved tougher than expected. But even to suggest that personal discomfiture would swing Job to the dark side assumes that Job was wholly selfish and cared little, if at all, for his children and servants.

"Skin for skin," demanded the Satan (2:4). What does that mean? Bullinger says that "Skin" is a figure of speech called Synedoche where a part is put for the whole (e.g. Matt 27:4). In Job it stands for what is most precious to man. In the opinion of the Satan, Job's skin was his personal well-being. That was all Job really had concern for. If it was touched, Job would do anything to save his life regardless of his alleged integrity. He would forfeit his innocence for robust health - Skin for skin. In other words, smite his physical skin and his spiritual "skin" would no longer be of importance to him.

The Satan was basically correct when he said, "All that a man hath will he give for his life." But it was misapplied to Job. He would give all, even his mortal life, his skin, in order to attain unto immortal harmony with God. It is true that when our life is endangered we readily shed objects that were once important to us (Isa 2:20-21; Jer 41:8; Acts 27:18-19). But Job was not about to permit his calamities to daunt his allegiance to God. If we strove to keep our integrity as eagerly as we would preserve our life then we would be able to overcome many of the stumbling-blocks placed in our spiritual path.

But nothing is more likely to ruffle the thoughts and put the mind into disorder than acute, personal, bodily pain. Examples exist of faithful people who rose above their infirmities to maintain their service to God (Gen 32:24-32; 2Cor 10:10, 13:7-9). Job retained his integrity while under severe tribulation, yet we can buckle in less testing trials.

In 2:6 permission is granted by Yahweh to the Satan that he may touch the skin of Job. There was one restriction, "But save his life (nephesh)." He was not to kill Job as this would not allow Job to prove his mettle. Some authorities state that nephesh, in this context, would imply "reason" or "mind" or "intellectual powers." This makes sense because if Job was afflicted with a mental debility his response could not be accurately assessed. It would be the language and behaviour not of his heart, but of his uncontrollable madness.

2:7-8 Job's illness

So the adversary (using power either granted by God or God Himself acting on the motion of the adversary) smote Job with a loathsome disease; sore boils (shechin). The horrible disease covered his whole body. Not a section remained untouched.

Shechin is a general word to describe a number of abhorrent complaints. It is used for the "botch of Egypt" (Exo 9:9-11; Deut 28:27,35), leprosy (Lev 13:18-23) and Hezekiah's boil (2King 20:7; Isa 38:21). To limit shechin to a specific disease is more than likely wrong. It doesn't really matter what the precise nature of the illness was. Whatever it was, it was not nice. Andersen offers an excellent precis of Job's condition: "Tradition favours either leprosy (Lev 13) or elephantiasis, for these exotic diseases had a fascination for Europeans who had never seen them. The simple story does not indulge in the exaggerated fantasies loved by tales and legends. The lack of detail prevents clinical diagnosis.

In assessing the symptoms described by Job in the dialogue, we must remember the poetic medium. The brief data point to boils, ulcers, or one of the numerous diseases of the skin ... Some kind of acute dermatitis spreading everywhere and developing infections with darkened (30:28) and peeling (30:30) skin with constantly erupting pustules (7:5) would manifest the pruritis [sensation of itching in the skin] and purulence [discharging pus] highlighted in 2:7. Other symptoms may be the results of complications in the wake of such a severe malady: anorexia, emaciation (19:20), fever (30:30), fits of depression (7:16, 30:15), weeping (16:16), sleeplessness (7:4), nightmares (7:14). These and other general sufferings, such as putrid breath (19:17, compare 17:1), failing vision (16:16), rotting teeth (19:20) and haggard looks (2:12) are less direct clues. They add up to a hideous picture of a man tortured by degrading disfigurement (Isa 52:14) and unendurable pain, a bleak reminder that a man is flesh, made out of soil from the ground."

Job was inflicted with something he probably did not deserve. In Deuteronomy 28:35 a result of disobedience was to be struck with shechin "from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head." It was, as the earlier part of the verse expounds, "a sore botch that cannot be healed." We are being introduced to Job as a type of Christ.

The phrase, "from the sole of his foot to his crown" is language used of mortal, vain flesh. It is used of Absalom: "In all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty: from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him" (2Sam 14:25). Absalom strikingly portrays the vanity of flesh. He committed moral atrocities, who despite the love of his father plotted his downfall, he harboured and made sure he was the centre of attention. In Isaiah 1:6 we see Israel in an extremely low spiritual condition described as, "From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment."

It is true Job bore the same decaying mortal body as Absalom and the people of Israel, but Job did not live as they did. He strove to please God and to retain his personal integrity. But his complaint demonstrated exactly the worth of mortal flesh. Brother Roberts, in "The Christadelphian Instructor", has this to say concerning Christ's death: "Because being born of Adam's condemned race, and partaking of their condemned nature, Christ was made subject, equally with them, to the consequences of Adam's transgression. Therefore his public execution was a public exhibition of what was due to man from God." Job's diseased body was a public exhibition of the worth of mortal flesh.

The type continues. Jesus did not remain in the grave because God raised him up again (Acts 2:24), just as Job's shechin was not "a sore botch that cannot be healed." "The LORD turned again the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before" (42:10). Christ's sacrifice, in opening the way of redemption to mankind, resulted in him being resurrected to glory. Job's dedication and prayers for his companions, after the hardship they dumped on him, resulted in him receiving salvation from an incurable disease. It also gave him the prospect of glory in the future age.

Job was now a man on his own. Help, in the form of soothing ointments and healing salves, was not forthcoming so he had to turn to a piece of broken pottery for relief. He scratched himself with the potsherd, not as an exhibition of his grief, but because of the itch and to scrape away the pus (LXX). His display of grief was to sit in ashes (Josh 7:6; 2Sam 13:19; Ezek 27:30; Jonah 3:6; Matt 11:21). Brother Sargent graphically records, "Job receives the final affliction: stricken with a form of leprosy, he has to go out through the gate where he had sat an honoured elder, isolated from his fellows, he gets what dusty comfort he can from the warmth of the mazbalah, that accumulation of years of burnt animal dung outside the city which was the resort of outcasts." Andersen adds, "This self-abnegation was more likely his own sorrowful way of accepting his new status as a piece of human trash to be thrown out with other refuse 'in this place of discarded things'." The reversal of Job's fortune is now at its limit. In 1:5 he stood before Yahweh offering burnt sacrifices, now, not much later in time, he is sitting in the town dung-hill, the rubbish dump, scraping his putrescent body with a piece of broken pottery.

Agur, the son of Jakeh, wrote in Proverbs 30:7-9:

"Two things I beg of you,
do not grudge me them before I die:
keep falsehood and lies far from me,
give me neither poverty nor riches,
grant me only my share of bread to eat,
for fear that surrounded by plenty, I should fall away
and say, 'Yahweh - who is Yahweh?'
or else, in destitution, take to stealing
and profane the name of my God" (JB).

Agur foresaw the problems of having too much ("I should fall away") or not enough ("profane the name of my God"). Job abided in one of either of these two conditions; the greatest man of the east or extreme destitution. Nothing in between. Yet in prosperity he was "perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil" and in poverty "Job sinned not nor charged God foolishly." Job truly was complete in his worship. Job was an amazing individual and the example is not one to be brushed aside. "Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life" (Rev 2:10).

2:9-10 Job's second reaction

A new personality enters the drama: the wife of Job. Her character is the source of some controversy. Is she good or bad? Rather than initially tackling this issue it is preferable to examine what she said.

Her first statement is a question. Some say that it could have been a taunt. Sort of like, "Look at what God has done to you. So why do you remain faithful to Him?" This can be seen in the same light as the statement made by the discouraged messenger in 2Kings 6:33, "Behold, this evil is of the LORD; why should I wait for the LORD any longer?" I believe that this is the correct way to interpret her words but not as a taunt. She has reached the end of her patience, her integrity. Job's children were her children. They are dead. She has seen her husband deprived of everything, including his health, and she presents statements that are, to her, totally logical.

Her opening question is laced with irony as she was requesting he do what the Satan predicted (2:5). Job was not directly tempted of the Satan. He knew nothing of his words but they came to him by way of his wife. This fact sets up the nasty interpretation of Job's wife. Matthew Henry paints her as a most insidious creature: "Satan urges him, by the persuasions of his own wife, to curse God. She was spared to him when the rest of his comforts were taken away, for this purpose, to be a troubler and tempter to him." Morgan jumps to the other extreme: "...and then there came the moment when her love-lit eyes looking at her man in agony, physical agony, she said, 'Renounce God and die.' Which meant, I would rather know you were dead, than see you suffer. I sympathise with her. So does every woman." Straight out of Mills and Boon. So what sort of person was she?

Job's wife could not have been the Satan's emissary as she receives no condemnation from God but is blessed with ten more children (42:13). Nor can one dogmatically say that she was to the other extreme as the Satan would have had her slain to add to Job's woes. It seems that she was a woman of some faith that the adversary knew would wilt under pressure, lose faith when the hedge was removed, and hence not be a strength or comfort to Job.

She cannot be justified for saying what she did. True, she was distraught, but to tell Job to, "Curse God and die," is irresponsible. The Apostle Peter writes, "Married women ... be submissive to your husbands ... Yours ought to be an inward beauty of nature, the imperishable ornament of a gentle and peaceful spirit, which is indeed precious in the sight of God. For this is how of old the holy women who set their hopes upon God used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their husbands" (1Pet 3:1-5 Weymouth). If Job's wife set her hopes on God, prayed for Job's restoration and comforted him in his distress, instead of placing a death wish before Job, she would have been of sterling service to her suffering husband.

Whatever motive lay behind her words, Job rejects them. Job compares her to one of the foolish (nebalah) women ("base women" Roth; "impious fool" Moffat; "impious women" RVmg). Nebalah is the feminine of nabal, which means, "To be foolish" (Ges). It does not mean, "To be wicked." Moreso, "To be impious." In other words Job is saying to his normally godly wife, "What are you saying? You sound like the ungodly women; women you were never like before." It is crucial to our understanding to note that "Job did not call his wife a fool nor did he say that such reasoning was godless; he was careful only to point out that such reasoning resembled the type of reasoning in which the godless indulged" (Spongberg).

Job continues by declaring the correct attitude to adopt: "If we take happiness from God's hand, must we not take sorrow also?" (2:10 JB). His attitude has not changed from 1:21. Job in all this did not sin with his lips. Some rabbis say that this implies that while his speech was blameless his thoughts were wavering (e.g. "But in his heart he sinned."). There is no justification for this interpretation. It does not say Job sinned in his heart. Such an interpretation places Job squarely in the condemnation his friends assailed him with. It contradicts Job's approach to religion; that it was more than outward propriety (1:5). Job's humble acceptance of his calamities indicated that he acknowledged God's power over His creation.

Job's conduct is typical of that expected of the true saint: "For in many things we all stumble. If any stumble not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also" (Jas 3:2 RV).

What more can we say about Job's wife? She had been with her husband faithfully year after year. Her faith, however, did not match her husband's. When the trial became too much (her reaction it seems did not occur until after the disease was placed on Job) she forsook the principles of the Lord and instructed her husband to do likewise. Remember those close to Christ - "What, could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak" (Matt 26:40-41). Remember their earlier confidence. Peter - "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended" (Matt 26:33). He was. James and John, were they able to drink of the cup Christ was to drink of, that cup of shame and suffering? "We are able" (Matt 20:22). What happened when Jesus was taken in the garden? "All the disciples forsook him, and fled" (Matt 26:56). Here we see Job again presented as a type of Christ and his wife typifies the bride - the disciples of Christ throughout history - who cannot achieve, who cannot endure, like her Lord.

Jesus did what no other man has or can achieve. He is the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14), God manifest in the flesh. Even when he was on the earth he stood out as somebody unique. He was a step up, maybe several steps up, from his brethren. Yes, they "beheld his glory." Why? What was the distinguishing feature of this mortal man? "As of the only begotten of the Father." God was his Father. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:20). Nobody else can legitimately claim that. "The Word ... made flesh." Nobody else was called that. Whereas Job stood out as the greatest man of his time, Jesus was the greatest man of all time - "full of grace and truth."

And we forsake our Lord. Just as Job's wife did. Just as the disciples of Christ did. But through the grace of God we are saved. The disciples were reconciled to he who was greater than them. Job's wife was blessed with her husband. And we, the bride of Christ will be united, reconciled and blessed with our groom, the Lord Jesus Christ, at the dawning of the new age.

2:11-13 The friends come and sympathise with him

Once again, the adversary has been proven wrong. He now passes out of the record. The Satan has served his purpose and is no longer required. Instead, these final verses of Chapter 2 introduce the second part of this five part drama. Job's three friends arrive to eventually afflict Job but in a different way. The Satan instigated a corporeal crisis, the three friends embroiled Job in verbal jousting, a war of words.

The fact that they met by appointment shows that they were already acquaintances who felt it better to come by common consent together. There is no reason to doubt that they were genuine friends and that their motives for visiting Job were sincere. As Matthew Henry writes, "Job's friends came to mourn with him, to mingle their tears with his, and so to comfort him ... They were not sent for, but came of their own accord." They came "to mourn (nud) with him and to comfort (nacham) him."

Nud is only translated "mourn" in 2:11. It means "to nod" (Strong) or "to be moved" (Ges). It has both a good and bad sense in that it can be extended to mean "to pity, to commiserate (as signified by a motion of the head) ... to comfort the afflicted" (Ges) or "to deplore, or (from tossing the head) taunt" (Strong). The intention of Job's friends was to sympathise and comfort but as their visit progressed they displayed the negative side of nud by wagging their heads in dismay, deploring his words, and challenging him, almost tauntingly.

Nacham also has a dual meaning. It can mean "comfort" as it does "repent". Job's friends came to comfort him, but were unanimous in believing that he was a sinner who should repent. Ironically, Job does "repent" (nacham) in 42:6.

Eliphaz the Temanite

His name most probably means "To whom God is strength" (Ges). He was of Teman which can be located in Edom. The only evidence its site has of its status is a large amount of pottery that indicates that it had considerable importance and could well have been the largest and most important region in the central Edomite area. This seems confirmed in Scripture where it is also listed as a venue for wisdom (Jer 49:7,20; Ezek 25:13; Amos 1:12; Obad :8-9).

Bildad the Shuhite

His name means "Son of contention" (Ges, Young). He was presumably a descendant of Shuah, son of Abraham by Keturah (Gen 25:2). As Genesis 25:6 indicates, the children of the concubines were sent east, that is east of the Jordan. The land of the Shuhites is sometimes identified with the Assyrian Suhu, on the right side of the Euphrates between the mouths of the Balikh and Khabour rivers (IDB).

Zophar the Naamathite

Quite a mysterious character. Opinions vary as to the meaning of his name: "Twittering bird" (IDB); "Hairy, rough" (Young); "Impudent" (Ges). Zophar is the only Naamathite in Scripture and nobody is really sure where Naamah is. For example: "Perhaps Djebel-el-Na'ameh, in NW Arabia" (IDB); "A land or tribe of Naamah is not known; the Judean town mentioned in Joshua 15:41 hardly qualifies" (Andersen). Others vaguely place it in the east country, land of wise men (1Kings 4:30).

Job's friends could not recognise him. As they were still some distance off, this does not mean that they thought he was somebody else. No, they could already see how different he looked from their last contact with him. He was, in this way, a type of Christ: "As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any other man, and his form more than the sons so men" (Isa 52:14). While his physical deprivations had their impact, Job, not unlike Naomi in Ruth 1:19, would have born the marks of the acute mental discomfiture he was undergoing.

They saw him and wept. They could not relieve the pain Job was in. They were helpless (1Sam 11:4, 30:4; Esther 4:1). They saw Job miserably altered, but did not recoil from him in fright or loathing. They responded with the feelings expected from a true friend. There were many times that they, either collectively or individually, reclined on his luxurious couches or ate at his sumptuous table, and now they are minded to share in his abject poverty, sitting in the place of outcasts with this grotesque caricature they know as Job. They determined to stay with him until he revived or died even though he could do nothing for them.

"Then, as Job had done earlier (1:20), they rent their mantles to express their heartfelt sorrow and threw dust upward to heaven so that it might fall upon their heads, both actions expressive of their feelings that what broke Job's heart broke theirs, and what fell from heaven upon him, their friend, fell also upon them (Josh 7:6; 1Sam 4:12; Lam 2:10)" (Spongberg).

They were so shocked at the change in Job that they sat down with him, in that filthy dung-hill, and mourned in silence as though he were dead. Seven days was the statutory period of mourning for the dead (Gen 50:10; 1Sam 31:13). He was a paradox: living death, a mere survivor who would appear better off dead. Nobody spoke, but dwelt in thought. Thought that formulated the words to follow.

Andersen sums up the conclusion of the Prologue when he says, "Attention is focused, not on the abstract mystery of evil, not on the moral question of undeserved suffering, but on one man's physical existence in bodily pain. There was nothing to be said. These wise men are horrified and speechless. They were true friends, bringing to Job's lonely ash-heap the compassion of a silent presence."

Digression - Where is Uz?

The exact location of Job's homeland, Uz, cannot be clearly ascertained nor is it crucial to our understanding of the Book of Job. A number of sites have been suggested. Firstly, 1:3 declares that Job "was the greatest of all the men of the east (qedem)." To the Israelite everything on the other side of the Jordan River was qedem, and therefore incorporates a huge tract of land. Lamentations 4:21 links Uz with Edom - a region of mountainous terrain, touching the south-eastern parts of the Dead Sea and extending some kilometres south almost to the Gulf of Aqaba. As the New Bible Dictionary notes, "The fact that Job is numbered with the people of the East (1:3 compare Judg 6:3,33; Isa 11:14; Ezek 25:4,10) seems to substantiate a location in the area of Edom." Genesis 10:23 associates Uz with Aram, father of Syria, and Genesis 22:21 with Nahor, elder brother of Abram, who eventually settled around Haran in northern Mesopotamia (Gen 24:10 with Gen 27:43). Job could have been close to the wilderness (1:19) and was open to attacks from Sabeans (probably based in the area we would identify as Yemen) (1:15). The home of the elderly Eliphaz - Teman in central Edom - is another indicator of Uz's proximity to Edom.

A combination of all these factors could place Uz on the northern borders of Edom, stretching along the east bank of the Jordan River.

Digression - Job's Satan, the sons of God and the LORD

Much, and I mean much, has been written about and debated over, especially by Christadelphians, the identities of the Satan, the sons of God and the LORD in the first two chapters of the Book of Job. And much of what has been written to support specific points of view is frustratingly valid. Frustrating in the sense that no sooner does one think they have it all worked out when a feasible alternative approach contradicts earlier conclusions.

In this digression I will essentially present the orthodox belief, Christadelphian options, and the viewpoint I support but not dogmatically. Throughout these notes, rather than interpret who the characters are, they will, in most instances, simply be presented as they are in the Book of Job. Unfortunately, because so much ink has been spilt and there have been many complex discussions on these matters, the important messages of the Book tend to become submerged. This digression is but another angle and the footnotes to it document the sources if you wish to pursue the alternatives.

Conclusions

By way of introduction, my almost definite conclusions are:

The Satan (literally "The Adversary") was human, an evil adversary to Job, once a member of "the sons of God," and was, at this time, an intruder or missing from their midst for some time (1:7).

The sons of God were the faithful servants of God, again human, who met for worship. "Sons of God" is a term used elsewhere in Scripture for mortal believers (Gen 6:2; Phil 2:15; 1John 3:1-2).

The LORD (Yahweh) is Yahweh's representative on earth. Again human, this person was a representative, possibly a priest, who could speak and act for God. Such a conclusion is feasible as God will work His providence through whomsoever.

"The Satan" - The Orthodox Viewpoint

The orthodox point of view of a supernatural Satan is encouraged by the rare use of the definite article in the Hebrew. Job's Satan is hassatan - "the Satan." Hassatan is only found in the Books of Job and Zechariah (Zech 3:1-2) and is interpreted as a "superhuman adversary" (BDB) who continues to exercise power on earth and has access to God (TWOT).

However, a number of factors should be noted. Firstly, hassatan, according to the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, means no more than "the one who acts as accuser, or prosecuting attorney, on a given occasion." Secondly, as that publication rightly points out, "Moreover far from being the antagonist of God and chief of a rival dominion, he is his subordinate and can only act in accordance with his orders" (1:12, 2:6).

Furthermore, Satan as a fallen angel is inconsistent with what the Scriptures have to say about angels. Jesus said that the angels are "continually in the presence of my Father in heaven" (Matt 18:10 JB). The writer to the Hebrews says, "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" (Heb 1:14 NIV). This "Satan went from the presence of the LORD" on two occasions (1:12, 2:7) and if he was the supernatural malevolent tempter of mainstream Christianity he would hardly qualify under the terms of Hebrews 1:14. The orthodox "Satan" and "angel" are not interchangeable.

Another factor that could support the mainstream view is that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2 were angels. While "sons of God" can be angels (38:7) those of Genesis 6:2 are clearly human. Angels do not marry (Mark 12:25) whereas "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (Gen 6:2 NIV). The feeling there was a dispute in heaven also seems illogical in the light of Christ's words that, "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand" (Mark 3:24).

"The Satan" - The Christadelphian Alternatives

i)	The "human" option (i.e. The "Conclusions" presented in the early part of this digression) is supported by Brethren Thomas¹, Styles², Spongberg³, and Walker⁴. Furthermore, Brother Thomas⁵ in a detailed exposition conjectures but doesn't prove that, "(The Satan) was probably the Chief of the Sabeans ... To this man Yahweh said by His priest, 'Whence comest thou?'". Questions that cast some doubt on this option include, "Does this make the Book of Job inconsistent within itself as the only other reference to the 'sons of God' (38:7) is undoubtedly bound to immortal angels?" and, "If the 'sons of God' is a meeting of faithful mortals why wasn't Job in attendance?" To the second question the answer is, "I don't know, but perhaps there was no compulsion for Job to be in attendance." The issue raised by the first question could be answered in that, in this instance, the immediate context determines the interpretation rather than a broader "Book" consistency.

ii)	The "angel" option has a number of variations. Brother Kingston⁶ claims that the Satan was an angel operating for the benefit of the earthly believer he represented. Brother Tennant⁷ states that it was "descriptive of an angel who is there to act as an adversary for a specific purpose." Brother Whittaker⁸, in his provocative way, believes the Satan to be "one of God's angels of evil (see 'Gospels'. HAW, p118), being empowered by the Almighty ... although the angels are immortal, they are beings limited in understanding and in physical powers ... The Almighty was almost compelled to respond as He did to this angelic challenge, because His own character was being put in question ... and, second for the benefit of the angel, Job had to be brought under test for the improvement of the angel's education, so to speak."

	This option, with its variations, can be called into question in some of the same ways the orthodox version is (i.e. division in heaven, serving the faithful, always in the presence of God). It also seems odd that heaven has regular meetings where God renews His acquaintance with His angels and makes important decisions via some sort of committee process. The language of 1:6 seems more like that of mortals assembling to worship God (Deut 31:14-15; Josh 24:1). In 1Samuel 10:19 it says quite clearly that the people were to "present themselves before the LORD," when, in reality, they presented themselves before Samuel, Yahweh's representative.

iii)	The "all in the mind" option is advanced by Brother Watkins⁹: "Here is a suggestion. Let us try to think of Satan as a symbol of unworthy human thoughts - not in the world, but amongst the 'sons of God'." His evidence is not convincing as the text simply does not read that way. It reads of real entities involved in real communication. Brother Lovelock's¹⁰ view contains a similar concept while incorporating the angelic council viewpoint.

iv)	The "find another character in the story" option throws up two prospects. Brother Pennington¹¹ affirms that Eliphaz is Satan. This seems unlikely as it places Job's adversary in the lengthy debate designed to plumb the cause of Job's suffering. Eliphaz's theory of exact retribution (i.e. the amount one suffers is directly proportional to their sin quotient - see 4:7-8) contradicts the motive for Satan's activity - to prove that Job's righteousness was the result of God's protection (1:9-11).

	Brother G. Mansfield's¹² assertion is the slightly more plausible alignment of Elihu with Job's adversary. However, it cannot be proven beyond doubt. Besides the fact that the text is silent on identifying who the Satan is, Elihu does not appear to do or say anything that clearly links him with the Satan. The verse advanced as proof, Job 34:36, does not "cruelly allege that Job ought to die because of his claims." Much of the evidence for this option is derived from conjecture and Elihu's unresolved exit from the text.

v)	The "Cain" option is unique to Brother Davison¹³. However, it was impossible for Cain to be contemporary with Job because Job certainly existed after the flood. The fact that Eliphaz was a Temanite, descended from Esau, bears this out. The link between the Satan and Cain is valid (Gen 4:26, 6:2 with Job 1:6; Gen 4:12 with Job 1:7; Gen 4:6 with Job 2:7). It affirms that the Satan was of similar mind to Cain.

The choice is yours! But as Brother Ashton¹⁴ writes, "None of these suggestions disturbs the facts of the case which have to be accepted. The initiative for the testing came from God, as did the 'evil' which occurred in Job's experience. Job learned through his suffering and so did his friends. Rather than arguing about exactly who or what is being described by Satan, it will be more profitable to learn the great lesson of the book, and recognise that the Lord of Heaven and Earth can only do that which is right and good."

1	J.Thomas	"Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come" magazine, 1857, p44-45
2	D.Styles	The Book of Job: Outlines and Notes, Christadelphian Study Notes, p2-3
3	E.M.Spongberg	The Book of Job, Christadelphian Scripture Study Service, 1965,p2-4
4	C.C.Walker	Job, The Christadelphian, (Second Edition) 1955, p8-10
5	J.Thomas	Eureka, The Christadelphian, 1974, Vol IIIa, p57
6	D.J.Kingston	Angels And The Court of Heaven, David Kingston, 1988, p146-152
7	C.Tennant	The Book of Job, The Christadelphian, 1991, p48-54
8	H.A.Whittaker	Bible Studies, Biblia, 1987, p372-373
9	P.Watkins	The Devil - The Great Deceiver, The Christadelphian, 1976, p37-40
10	R.T.Lovelock	Job, The Christadelphian, 1957, p19-21
11	A.E.Pennington	"The Christadelphian" magazine, 1997, p457
12	G.E.Mansfield	"Logos" magazine, March 1998, p179
13	W. Davison	Letters to the Editor, "The Christadelphian" magazine, 1992, p71
14	M. Ashton	Answers to Correspondents, "The Christadelphian" magazine, 1992, p28