to the reader. Job hates the life he must now endure. If offered to him, he would reject the opportunity to live forever, something for which many people might yearn. He has one simple wish—to be left alone. The word hevel, literally “a breath, a vapor,” is the only word in the verse that presents the translator with a challenge. This is the word used throughout Ecclesiastes and may be considered the notion with which Ecclesiastes is most associated. Although often translated as “vanity,” as in Ecclesiastes (1:2), hevel havalim, ha-kol hevel, it really means “Useless, it is all useless. Everything is useless.” We borrow from that translation and translate the last clause of this verse as “My days are useless.”
7:17 What is a human that you think so much of a person? And that you pay attention to that person?
In order to achieve gender neutrality, we have translated “him” as “a person.” Through the author, Job makes a basic assumption that provides a foundation for this verse. Job suffers, because God wants him to suffer. It is because God knows Job. It is because God pays attention to him. Were God unaware of Job or were God not attentive to Job, then Job would not have suffered nor have arrived to his current state. Thus, Job’s suffering (and the problem of theodicy that accompanies it) is a function of God’s knowledge of the individual and God’s specific act of will related to that person. Were Job an inanimate object or an animal, perhaps he might have escaped God’s gaze. On the other hand, were the God of the book of Job not understood from a traditional perspective, then God might not have been involved with Job at all.
Rashi sees this verse as an affirmation of the human, as well as an affirmation of the relationship between humanity and God. Thus, he translates the verse as “You have magnified humanity by paying attention to the individual and by reviewing one’s deeds every morning and examining the individual every moment.”
7:18 You review the individual every morning and test people every moment.
In order to avoid gender specificity, we have translated the second clause in the plural. Clearly, Rashi’s comment on the previous verse was informed by this verse. God is aware of human actions at all times. Moreover, God puts humans into situations to see how they will respond, whether they will respond with appropriate moral intention. Humans are the only ones of divine creation who warrant God’s continual care and attention. But divine attention presents problems for such creatures. Humans are only human; thus, they sin. As a result, they incur guilt and deserve to be punished. Job now complains that God knows whatever it is that he, as a fallible mortal being, has done.
7:19 When will You stop looking at me? Can’t You leave me alone until I swallow my spit?
Job believes that God follows his every move and is attentive to him. Job expresses a desire that God pay attention to someone else and leave him alone. This second phrase is a bit peculiar. It is Job’s way of saying, “Leave me alone until I die on my own.”
7:20 O You who watch humanity, what have I done to You? Why did You set me up as an obstacle to you? Why have I become a burden to myself?
Job complains that any sin he has committed does not affect God. Nonetheless, religions that demand obedience from people to what are considered God’s commands take any sin as an affront to God.
7:21 Why don’t You pardon my transgression and forgive my iniquity? I shall soon lie down in the dust. So when You search for me, I won’t be there.
This verse seems to reflect somewhat of a change in Job’s argument. He finally admits that perhaps he has transgressed and therefore asks for God’s mercy. Moreover, since he assumes that he will die soon and that God will not attend to him when he is dead, God might as well start being inattentive now.
Perhaps the author intentionally chose to use the uncommon verb shachartani (search for me) from the root shin-chet-raysh because of its aural resonance with the noun shachar (morning), so that following the phrase “I shall soon lie down . . .” implies a sense of “searching for someone in the morning.”
The Doctrine of Resurrection of the Dead
The notion of resurrection is not found in the Bible, particularly not as a reward for righteous deeds. It is introduced by the early Rabbis who lived in the first to third centuries of the Common Era and undermines biblical theology and the authority of the priests as a result. Thus, it is not found directly in the book of Job. Such theology was insinuated into Job by commentators who reflect rabbinic theology. Because this theology is part of mainstream Judaism (although it was rejected by classical Reform thinkers), it is difficult to read texts such as Job without such inferences.
The doctrine (like most Jewish beliefs) is not systematically delineated in rabbinic literature but is referred to extensively. Basically, rabbinic theology suggests that body and soul will be reunited—with the body resurrected from the grave—at the onset of the messianic era, for judgment. Those who are judged as righteous will be rewarded with a place in the world-to-come, a primary feature of this theology.
This doctrine is also reflected in Jewish liturgy, particularly in the second blessing of the core prayer called the amidah (literally, standing prayer) which concludes with the blessing “mechayeh hameitim” (Who resurrects the dead). This doctrine also led to the notion of the resurrection of Jesus in Christian theology.
World-to-Come
The eschatological concept of a world-to-come (olam haba) developed during the period of the Second Temple. This concept was expanded upon in subsequent rabbinic literature. While the term olam originally was related to space, it later took on the dimension of time. Jewish tradition suggests that a major event such as the Day of Judgment would bring this world to an end and usher in the next world, that is, the world-to-come. Heaven or paradise are terms used interchangeably to define olam haba. However, some make a distinction between the temporary place where souls reside prior to final judgment and the “other world” where the departed souls of “good” people permanently reside.6
6. Kravitz and Olitzky, Kohelet, 20.
Chapter 8
8:1 Then Bildad the Shuchite responded:
This chapter begins the response of another one of Job’s friends in an ostensible attempt to comfort him. According to Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed (part 3, chapter 23), each of Job’s comforters present a different view of providence. Maimonides thinks that Eliphaz represents the standard rabbinic position: Job is being punished for his sins, plain and simple. Bildad, on the other hand, represents the view of the Mu’tazila, a group of Islamic thinkers who contended that God knows all things. All things followed divine wisdom. Any incongruities with regard to virtue and its reward, as well as vice and its punishment, would be made up in the world-to-come. (See Maimonides, Guide, part 3, chapter 17.)
8:2 How long will you say these things? Your words are like a strong wind.
Bildad is tired of Job’s complaints and accusations. He says, “Your words make noise, but they don’t make much sense.” Rashi comes close to the contemporary American English idiom when he translates, “Your words are a lot of wind.”
8:3 Does God pervert judgment? Does the Almighty pervert justice?
These two clauses are clearly parallel and attempt to express the same sentiment and are part of Bildad’s defense of God. Bildad’s position, which will be explicated in the verses that follow, reminds us that he believes that people could and should be punished for the actions of their children and other members of their family. This is part of the system that Bildad implies is just and not perverse. Bildad, like Eliphaz, must maintain Job’s guilt. The repetition in the two parts of the verse emphasize the central challenge of the book of Job: If Job is not guilty, then who is indeed responsible for his suffering?
8:4 If your children sinned again God, then God sent them into the hand of their transgression.
This is a painful verse, to be sure, and very difficult to read, let alone defend.