Restoration Quarterly 16
(1973) 159-165.
Copyright © 1973 by
Restoration Quarterly, cited with permission.
Job's Summons to Yahweh:
The Exploitation of a Legal
Metaphor
J. J. M.
ROBERTS
Johns Hopkins
University
Legal metaphors are extremely popular in the
theological
language of the Old Testament.1 In
part this popularity of
legal language merely reflects
and, where the idea of the deity as judge was both
ancient
widespread.2 Partly it is a more
uniquely Israelite phe-
nomenon, stemming from early
the international treaty form to give institutional
expression
to her new relation with Yahweh.3 Much
of the legal imagery
of the Psalms comes out of the first background,4
while the
legal terminology of the prophets, particularly in
the pro-
phetic rib, must often be traced back to covenantal theol-
ogy.5 Nevertheless, the
imagery from both backgrounds is
often mixed, so one must be wary of pushing for pure
forms.
This warning is especially appropriate in
connection with
the book of Job, where the legal imagery
flourishes, but
often in unconventional ways. It is to such an
unconventional
usage of legal metaphor that this study, presented in
memory
of my friend and respected teacher the late Dr. J.
W. Roberts,
is directed.
1 B. Gemser,
"The rib-or controversy-pattern in Hebrew
mentality," SVT 3 (1955), 120-137.
2
Testament,
zum Verstandnis eines Gebetsbitte, lnnsbruch: Universi- .
tatsverlag Wagner, 1966.
3 The vast literature on covenant is still
expanding and cannot be
listed here. For the sake of the novice, however, one
should mention
Delbert
R. Hillers' Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea (
The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1969), which is undoubtedly the best intro-
duction to the subject. i
4 Gamper,
op. Clt. I
5 Julien
rupture de l'alliance
(Studia travaux de recherche, 22; Bruges-Paris:
Desclee de BrouwerllMontreal:
Les Editions Bellarmin, 1967).
159
160
Restoration
Quarterly
If 1 say, "I will forget my complaint,
I will relax my face and smile,"
I become afraid of all my sufferings.
I know you will not acquit me.
I am already found guilty;
Why should 1 struggle in vain.
Were 1 to wash myself with
soapwort,
Cleanse my hands with lye;
You would dunk me in filth,
And my clothes would abhor me.
For he is not a man, like me, whom 1 could
challenge:
"Let us go to court together (nbw' yhdw
bmt'pt)."
Would there were an umpIre
between us
That he might place his hand on us both.
Let him put aside his club,
And let his terror not dismay me.
Then I would speak and not fear him,
Though 1 am not just before him.6 (Job
This passage is loaded with unconventional
thoughts, but
let us focus first on the expression Job uses in
his hypotheti-
cal summons to God, "Let us go to court
together (nbw'
yhdw bmspt)." This
expression, while unexceptional when
used of two humans, runs counter to normal usage
when
applied to God. Bw' bmspt 'm/'t, "to enter into litigation
with," or
hby' bmspt, "to
bring into litigation," when used
with God as the subject, normally designates an
experience to
be avoided if possible. The Psalmist prays to be
delivered
from it: "Do not enter into judgment with your
servant (w'l
tbw' bmspt 't 'bdk), for no living being
can be in the right
before you;' (Ps. 143:2). Isaiah threatens the leaders
of
with its imminence, "Yahweh is about to take
the stand to
prosecute, He is about to stand to judge his people,
Yahweh
is entering into litigation with the elders of his
people and
their princes (yhwh bmspt ybw' 'm. . .
.)" (Isaiah
6 For the rendering of
this last line see Anton C. M. Blommerde,
Northwest Semitic
Grammar and Job
(Biblica et Orientalia, 22;
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969), 57, 58. There are other
difficulties
in the text as well, but for the sake of economy I
have limited my
textual notes to those places where my rendering
departs radically from
any of the commonly accepted translations. For the
rest the reader
should consult the commentaries, especially Marvin
Pope's in the
chor Bible series.
The
Exploitation of a Legal Metaphor: J. J. M. Roberts 161
And
Qohelet uses it as a warning to temper any libertine
misunderstanding of his philosophy of
life:
Rejoice, young man, in your youth,
And let your heart cheer you in the days of your
youth.
Walk in the ways of your heart and in the sight
of
your eyes,
But know that for all these things God will
bring
you into judgment (yby' k h'lhym bmspt)
(Ecclesiastes 11: 9).7
The reason for this rather negative evaluation
of such an
experience is clearly expressed in Eliphaz's sharp rebuke to
Job:
"Is it because of your piety he reproves you (ykyhk)?
That
he enters into litigation with you (ybw' 'mk bmspt)"
Job
22:4)? Up to this point in the dialogue God has not
deigned to speak with Job, so the reference
cannot be to an
oral rebuke. The only tangible expression of
Yahweh's re-
proof or litigation lay in the sufferings Job was
enduring.
Such
suffering was interpreted in traditional Israelite
thought, as in Near Eastern thought in general,
as God's judg-
ment on a sinner. Thus the
metaphor "to bring/enter into
judgment," when used with God as the
subject, meant, trans-
lated into literal prose,
"to suffer some kind of pain or disas-
ter." Naturally that
is an experience to be avoided and one ,
which invites its use as a warning.
Job follows this normal usage of the metaphor
when he
complains that man is too ephemeral a creature,
his life too
brief, for God to waste time bringing him to court
(14:1-3),
but in the passage quoted earlier (
express a quite different sentiment. Under
certain circum-
stances he would actually initiate litigation
with God! Obvi-
ously Job is using the
expression with a different meaning
here-he certainly. does
not want more suffering. And if one
considers the circumstances in which this summons
would
be offered, one can see what Job has done to the
metaphor.
He
has simply transferred it, untranslated, out of the
realm of
7 The other occurrence of this expression
in Ecclesiastes 12:14
obably has a somewhat
different implication.
162
Restoration
Quarterly
metaphor into that of literal prose. While
traditional language
spoke metaphorically of God entering into judgment
with
man, Job pleads that he literally do so in a
tangible, equitable
fashion.
This implies, among other things,
that God make himself
visible to his opponent at law. Part of Job's
complaint is his
inability to find God. He touches on this problem
of God's
invisibility earlier in the same
chapter, "Lo, he passes by me,
but I cannot see him; He moves on by, but I cannot
perceive
him" (
Would that I knew where to find him
That I might come to his
tribunal.
I would lay my case before him,
Would fill my mouth with
arguments.
I want to know what words he would answer me.
I want to consider what he would say to me.
Would he contend with me in his great strength?
No, he would pay attention to me.
There the upright could reason with him,
And I could carry my case through successfully.
Lo, I go forward, but he is not there,
Backwards, but I cannot perceive him.
I turn left, but I cannot see him,
I turn right, but I do not spy him.8
It is not enough, however, for God to show
himself to
his opponent. He must restrain himself, forego the
use of his
awesome, intimidating power, in order that Job
may reason
with him unafraid, as an equal:
Only two things do not do to me,
Then I will not hide from your face:
Remove your hand from upon me,
And let your terror not dismay me.
Then call, and I will
answer,
Or let me speak, and you reply. (13:20-22)
8 It would also be possible to translate
the terms "forward," "back-
wards," "left," and "right,"
in accordance with their use in Hebrew to
designate the cardinal points of the compass, as
"east," "west,"
"north," and "south," respectively.
The
Exploitation of a Legal Metaphor: J. J. M. Roberts 163
Otherwise
justice cannot be achieved, for God would simply
terrorize his opponent into accepting his verdict:
If he carries off, who can challenge him,
Who can say to him, "What are you
doing?"
A god could not turn back his anger;
The helpers of Rahab grovelled beneath him.
How then could I challenge him?
Choose my words with him?
Though in the right I could not answer;
I would have to entreat my judge.9
If I summoned, and he answered,
I do not believe he would heed my voice.
He would bruise me with a tempest
And multiply my wounds without cause.
He would not permit me to catch my breath.
Yea, he would sate me with bitterness.
Be it power, he is strongest;
Or litigation, who could
arraign him?
Though I were innocent,
his mouth would declare me guilty.
Though I were
blameless, he would pronounce me perverse.
(9:12-20)
In stressing this need for Yahweh to exercise
self-control,
the poet appears to have picked upon a logical
weakness in
legal imagery dear to the prophets. The whole
presentation in
Job
9 may, in fact, be read as a critical reflection on the
famous passage in Isaiah 1:18-20:10
Come and let us reason together, says Yahweh.
If your sins be as scarlet, shall they become white
9 This translation follows the MT
vocalization lmsop tl,
but takes
the mem as the enclitic
expansion of the preposition, i.e. lm s'pty. Cf.
the use of lmw in 27:14; 29:21; 38:40; and 40:4.
10 Both have a summons to litigation (Isa. 1:18//Job
stress the impossibility of man's cleansing himself
before God (Isa.
[see next note]//Job 9:30-31), and both make it evident,
though in
radically different ways, that Yahweh's will
cannot be thwarted (Isa.
1:19-20//
for Job, see below).
164
Restoration
Quarterly
as snow?11
If they are red like crimson, shall they become
as
wool?
If you are willing and obedient, you will eat
the
good of the land,
But if you refuse and rebell,
you will be devoured
by the sword,
For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.
The
late President Johnson once quoted the first line of this
text in an appeal for national unity only to have a
querulous
critic point to its conclusion. The appeal to sweet
reason-
ableness ends in a threat! Agree
with me or be damned!
Actually the word translated "reason
together" (nwkhh)
properly means "to dispute together in
court," but that only
gives more point to the critic's cynicism. Yahweh is
both an
interested party in the lawsuit and the judge! This
is hardly a
fair arrangement for Yahweh's opponents at law, yet
this
rather bizarre pattern constantly appears in the
prophetic
ribs. It can only be
explained, I think, by the covenantal
background to these prophetic lawsuits. In the
international
treaties the gods who served as witnesses also
acted as judges,
in the event the treaty was broken, either by
deciding the
outcome of the battle which was almost sure to
follow, or by
afflicting the guilty side with natural disaster.12
But Israel,
11 For this rendering of this and the
following line see Hans Wild-
berger, Jesaja (BK XII; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972),
52-53,
especially the following:
Since Yahweh summons to a clarification before
the judg-
ment, he must say why that
is necessary. Against the
prophet's preaching one will have
raised the objection that
the possibility of
reparation for the guilt of sin exists, and
indeed through cuI tic rites, be they sacrifice or ritual wash-
ings. It is not the
forgiveness of sins, but the possibility of
expiation that stands under
discussion. Now it is fully in
line with [vss.] 10-17 if here also Isaiah opposes the
sharpest "No!" to a
confidence rooted in the performance
of cuI
tic rites and thus destroys the certainty of salvation,
so understood, as an
illusion. One cannot be finished with
Ithe guilt of sin so easily,
and man should not attempt to )
play so sacrilegious a game
with God's patience (p. 53).
12 For the first note the appeal to Shamash
in the Tukulti-Ninurta
Epic
and in Yarim-Lim's letter to Yashub-Yahad
(both conveniently
included in the appendix to
the latter see Mursilis's
plague prayers (ANET, p. 395, para. 4-10).
The
Exploitation ora Legal Metaphor: J. J. M. Roberts 165
when it adapted this political form to express its
religious
commitment to Yahweh, obviously could not
assimilate these
pagan gods-one finds only attenuated accommodations
to
the pressure of the form.1 3 Thus Yahweh, one party
to the
treaty, also had to assume the responsibility of the
gods to
see that it was observed. As a result, the lawsuits
based on
this covenant model place Yahweh in this same
invidious dual
role. This is
sometimes obscured by the appeal to various
parties as witnesses, but ultimately it is
always Yahweh, the
litigant, who pronounces judgment on the guilty.
One can see that the flaw lies at the metaphor's
roots, in
imperfect analogy between the original political
form and
the religious use to which it was put. Other
metaphors for
God’s
relation to man such as the language of father and son
do not harbor this particular weakness. Job,
however, who
appears to have read the Isaiah passage with the
same cynical
eye as Johnson's critic, is interested in
exploiting the meta-
phor, not in explaining its
flaw. How can he hope for a fair
trial, if God is to be both his opponent and his
judge? Thus
Job
presses for a third party to adjudicate his dispute with God.
This third party, variously referred to as an
"umpire"
(mwkyh),14
"witness" (‘d and shd),15 "interpreter"
mlys),16 and
"redeemer" (g'l),17
has been the source of
endless discussion, and the passages where this
figure occurs
are some of the most difficult in the book of Job.
One can-
not deal with them here except to say that all
these terms take
on more than ordinary significance when applied to
this third party.
That is entirely in keeping with our poet's
method. He has produced
Job's
summons to Yahweh with its concomitant features by exploiting
ambiguities and logical weaknesses in the
traditional legal metaphors. It is
not surprising that these terms suffer the same
creative fate.
13 The prophetic appeal to heaven and earth
as witnesses must be read as such.
14 Job
15 Job
16 Job 16:19; 33:23.
17 Job
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Restoration
Quarterly Corporation
www.restorationquarterly.org
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu