Thomas Aquinas Commentary Job 13

After Job showed that the excellence of God's power could be known by experience, he concludes, “Behold, my eye has seen all these things and my ear has heard them.” It is as if he were saying: I know the previously described effects that show God’s strength and wisdom, partly by sight and partly by hearing.

Nor has my knowledge rested in these effects perceived by the senses. Instead, from them I have risen to an understanding of the truth. Thus, he says, “and I understood each one”—that is, what each effect demonstrated about God, or about His wisdom, understanding, counsel, or strength. Dismissing their boasting, by which they seemed to be placing themselves above him by declaring the great things of God, Job then says, “I also know in the same way you do” those things that relate to the magnificence of God, “nor am I inferior to you,” in the sense that I know these things less, or imperfectly, or as if I were learning them only from you.

Since Zophar had proposed God’s excellence (Job 11:6) as an argument against Job for daring to dispute with God, Job continues, “Yet let me speak to the Almighty.” It is as if he were saying: Although I understand the excellence of divine wisdom and power from His diverse effects no less than you do, I am still not reasonably deterred by this from my position. Rather, I want to address God, moved to open my heart to Him who is the searcher and judge of hearts, and to seek the truth from Him who is the teacher of all truth.

So he adds, “and I desire to dispute with him”—not to challenge God’s judgments, but to destroy your errors, which would imply that there is injustice in God. He continues, “First I will show that you are makers of lies,” because they had invented the lie that Job had led an evil life. They arrived at this lie because they were mistaken about the faith by which one worships God, believing that rewards for merits and punishments for sins happen only in this life. He therefore says, “and you are worshippers of perverse dogmas.” For whoever turns away from the true knowledge of God worships not God, but his own false doctrines.

When Job says, “first I will show you,” this should not be understood to mean that he will first destroy their corrupt doctrines in his speech and only afterward dispute with God. Rather, it means that while he intends to dispute with God, his primary intention is to destroy their doctrines.

People often propose things as provable, even though they are false. When they do not know how to defend or convincingly prove them, they reveal their ignorance when they speak. This was the case with Job’s friends. So he says, “Would that you were silent so that people would think you were wise men,” because the very fact that you inappropriately defend and try to prove false doctrines shows that you are foolish. Since you propose false doctrines and use inappropriate methods to prove them, you are in need of correction. This is what he concludes, saying, “Listen, then, to my correction,” by which I will correct your reasoning process, “and hear the judgment of my lips,” with which I will condemn your false doctrines.

First, Job intends to correct their flawed reasoning process. Since they had assumed that rewards and punishments for good and evil works are given in this present life, they found it necessary to use lies to defend God’s justice. Because it is evident that some innocent and righteous people are oppressed by adversity in this life, it was therefore necessary for them to attribute crimes to the righteous to defend God’s justice. Thus, they charged Job with impiety because they saw him afflicted.

But one who defends the truth with lies uses inappropriate means, so Job asks, “Do you think that God needs your lie?” It is as if to say: Is it necessary to use lies to defend divine justice? In fact, what cannot be defended except by lies cannot possibly be true. When someone strives to lie against the clear truth, he is compelled to invent some crafty and fraudulent means to disguise his lie with deception. So when these men also tried to lie against the righteousness of Job, which was clear to all, they used certain deceptions. Specifically, they pointed to human frailty, which easily falls into sin, and compared it to divine excellence, so that one might think it was more likely that Job was evil than that God was unjust. Job then asks, “so that you might speak deception for him?” because they were speaking with deceit on God’s behalf when they deceitfully tried to charge Job with impiety to defend God’s justice.

Job’s friends could respond, however, that they did not speak deceitfully against him, but only said what they thought. Job therefore shows that if this were true, they would be guilty of another vice, even if excused from deceit: namely, partiality (or “respect of persons”), which undermines the justice of a judge. Partiality consists in condemning or denying another’s apparent righteousness because of the greatness of a different person involved in the case, even without knowing the true justice of the matter.

If, therefore, Job’s friends judged him to be evil—though they saw righteousness clearly in him—and did so only out of consideration for God’s greatness, even though their own doctrines could not explain how Job could be justly punished by God, it is as if they were showing partiality to God in the judgment by which they condemned Job. So he then asks, “Do you take God’s part and try to judge for God?” He says this because a person who strives to judge on behalf of another, without knowing the facts of the case, will try to invent any means possible to make that person’s cause appear just.

Sometimes, a person who fraudulently defends another’s cause pleases the one being defended, even if that person is just. This can happen in two ways. First, the person being defended might be ignorant that his cause is unjust and is therefore pleased to have a defender. Job excludes this possibility in God’s case, asking, “Or will it please him (God)” that you strive to judge unjustly on His behalf? God cannot be ignorant of the case, and so Job adds, “from whom nothing can be concealed?”

Second, the person whose case is defended by fraud might be deceived by the defender’s fraudulent arguments into thinking his defense is just. Job also excludes this possibility regarding God, asking, “Or is he deceived like a man by your fraudulent practices?” Therefore, it is clear that God does not need a lie to defend His goodness and justice, because truth can be defended without a lie. It is also evident that if accepting the friends' doctrines leads to the inappropriate conclusion that God’s justice needs a lie for its defense, then their proposed teachings must be false.

One must also carefully consider that he who uses a lie to demonstrate the justice and goodness of God not only does something God does not need, but also offends God in the very act. Since God is truth and every lie is contrary to the truth, whoever uses a lie to show God’s magnificence acts against God. The Apostle Paul says this very clearly: “We are found to be false witnesses of God, because we have given testimony against God that He raised Christ to life who has not been raised if the dead are not raised” (1 Corinthians 15:15).

To say that God raised the dead, if this is not true, is to speak against God—even though it may seem to demonstrate divine power—because it is against the truth of God. Therefore, those who use a lie to defend God not only fail to receive a reward for pleasing Him, but they also merit punishment for acting against Him. So Job continues, “He Himself blames you because you took His part secretly.” He says “secretly” because although they seemed outwardly to take God’s side, as if they knew the justice of His actions, in their consciences they did not know by what justice Job had been punished. Thus, in the hidden part of their hearts, they showed partiality to God by trying to defend His justice falsely.

Job now shows how God will blame them, saying, “He will rouse himself immediately and he will throw you into confusion.” It is as if to say: Merely because you are not suffering adversity, you dispute God’s justice with a tranquil mind. But if tribulation comes upon you (which Job calls God “rousing himself,” since punishment is called the anger of God in Scripture), your minds will be thrown into confusion, especially because your faith is not firmly grounded in the truth.

Since they considered nothing good or evil except for temporal things, they avoided sin only so that nothing bad would happen to them. They seemed to serve God only from a fear of present evils. So Job says, “and his terror will rush upon you,” for you fear God only from the dread of experiencing evil now, and that is just what will happen to you, according to Proverbs: “What the unjust man fears will come upon him” (Proverbs 10:24).

Because they had vainly promised Job that he would live on in the memory of others even after death (Job 11:18), he in turn mockingly promises them the opposite, saying, “Your memory will be like ashes.” For just as ashes remain for only a short time after wood is burned, so a person’s reputation passes away quickly after death. Hence, it is futile to expect fame after death. They had also promised him permanence and reverence for his tomb (Job 11:19), but this he also dismisses as meaningless, promising them the contrary: “your necks will be cast down in the mud.” By their “necks,” he means their power and dignity, which he says will be thrown down “in the mud”—that is, to a weak and contemptible state.

After correcting the reasoning of his friends, who tried to defend divine justice with lies, Job now proceeds to dismantle their false dogmas in the form of a debate with God. First, he asks for their attention, as if about to say something important: “Be silent for a little while, so I can say everything my mind suggests to me.” He adds this because they might say, “You are saying useless things and should not be heard.” But listening to someone for a short time is not burdensome. Alternatively, he adds this phrase to show that he is not going to speak by inventing lies or devising deceptions, but will say what is truly on his mind.

Job’s friends had accused him of two things: impatience and ostentation (Job 4:2, 7), both of which he now denies, so that in the following debate he will not seem to be speaking from either anger or pride. Observe that impatience comes from an overabundance of sorrow that is not moderated by reason, for excessive sorrow leads to despair. As a result of despair, a person disregards the health of both body and soul. Therefore, to deny his impatience, he asks, “Why do I tear my flesh with my teeth?” as if to say: “There is no reason for me to despair of my body’s health through impatience, like those who, despairing of their physical life, devour their own flesh when oppressed by hunger.” And also, “why should I carry my soul in my hands?” for there is no reason I should disregard the salvation of my soul. For what a person carries in their hands is easily lost, suggesting they are not very afraid of losing it. In contrast, a person hides what they are afraid of losing.

He then states the reason why he should neither tear his flesh in impatience nor carry his soul in his hands, saying, Even if he should kill me, I will hope in him. He is saying, in effect: “You believe that because of the temporal evils I suffer, I have stopped hoping in God.” If my hope in God were only for temporal goods, I would be driven to despair, for he has already said, “I have despaired” (Job 7:16). But because my hope in God is for spiritual goods that remain after death, even if He afflicts me to the point of death, the hope I have in Him will not end. However, because inordinate hope degenerates into presumption, he adds, nevertheless, I will blame my own conduct in his sight. This is as if to say: “I do not hope in Him because I believe He will free me even if I persevere in sin, but because I believe He will free me if I renounce my sins.” Therefore, he will be my savior, if my sins are displeasing to me.

He shows why God saves those who blame their own conduct in His presence, saying, for no hypocrite will come into his presence. A hypocrite is someone who, though unjust, openly professes to be just and does not accuse himself of his conduct in God’s presence. Therefore, “he will not come into the presence of God” to see God, in whom the ultimate salvation of humanity consists—a point Job will explain later at greater length (Job 4:13; Job 19:25). He will still come into His presence to be judged by Him. Thus, he has not only denied his own impatience but also any presumption of innocence, by publicly confessing that he blames his conduct in God’s presence. In doing so, he aims to end every slander from his friends.

Then, as he is about to enter the debate, he first makes his listeners attentive in two ways. First, by couching what he will say in a certain mystery, since declaring a topic to be difficult makes an audience more attentive. So he says, Hear my discourse and understand my riddle with your ears. A riddle is an obscure discourse that presents one thing on the surface but means something else internally. Second, he makes them attentive by assuring them of the truth of what he is about to say. Thus he says, If I am judged, I know I will be found just. He certainly does not say this about his own innocence, since he has already said, I will blame my own conduct in His presence (Job 13:15). Instead, he says this about the truth of the doctrine they were debating, as if in a trial. In a trial, the one in whose favor the sentence is decided is found just. Therefore, when someone in a debate is shown to be speaking the truth, he is found just, as if in a trial.

After making his listeners attentive, he determines the manner of his argument, for he wants to dispute in the form of a debate. He expresses this by saying, Who will be judged with me?—that is, “With whom may I debate about the truth?”—and Let him come—that is, “Let him come forward to dispute!” He then states the reason he intends to debate the truth, saying, Why am I spent in remaining silent? For a person is worn down little by little in the course of this present life, especially when subjected to an infirmity like Job’s. He is “spent in silence” when he passes through this present life without leaving any trace of his wisdom through his teaching. To avoid this fate, Job decided not to be silent about the truth, so that he might live on after death through his teaching, even though his body is consumed. There is also another explanation. When someone externally expresses a pain suffered in the heart, the soul is, in a sense, pacified. In contrast, by remaining silent, the pain becomes more acute internally, and one is somehow consumed by one's own silence.

Since he has sought someone to argue with him, asking, Who will be judged with me? and since he had already said, I desire to dispute with God (Job 13:3), from this point on he speaks as if he is in God’s presence and debating with Him. But for a man to debate with God does not seem fitting, because of the excellence by which God surpasses man. However, one must consider that truth does not change based on the status of the persons involved. Therefore, when someone speaks the truth, he cannot be convinced of the contrary, no matter with whom he argues. Now, Job was sure he was speaking a truth inspired by God through the gift of faith and wisdom. So, while confident in the truth, he asks that divine strength not strike him down, either through the evils he was presently bearing or through the fear of others yet to be inflicted.

He says, Spare me in only two things, and then I will not hide myself from your face, as if to say: “I will not be afraid to debate with you.” For when someone is afraid, he usually hides from the sight of those he fears. He explains these two things when he says, Keep your hand far from me—that is, do not whip me with present scourges—and, let not your power terrify me—that is, with future punishments. For a person can be hindered in two ways from defending a truth he knows for certain in a debate: either by being afflicted in body or by being disturbed in soul by fear or some other passion.

A debate takes place between two parties: one making objections and the other answering them. So, in entering a debate with God, Job gives Him the option of choosing which role He wants to take: the objector or the respondent. He therefore says, Call me and I will answer you, or at least allow me to speak, and you will answer me. The first part means, “You object, and I will answer.” The second part means, “Allow me to speak by raising objections, and you answer me.” He says this figuratively to show that he is prepared to do both: either to defend the truth he professes or to refute what might be said against it.

First, he offers God the role of the opposing party, saying, Show me what great crimes, sins, wicked deeds, and faults I have. Here one must consider that Job’s friends seemed to argue against him as if taking God’s side, according to what was said earlier: Do you take God’s part to try to judge for God? (Job 13:8). Job’s friends had argued that he was being punished for his sins. He therefore asks God to use this same objection against him, saying, Show me what great iniquities, sins, wicked deeds, and faults I have. In effect, he is saying: “If you are afflicting me for my sins, as my friends falsely charge while trying to speak for you, I ask you to show me for which sins you are afflicting me so gravely.” He does not ask, “what evils I have,” but “what great,” because if the only reason for present afflictions is human sin—as Job’s friends believe—then the most grievous afflictions must be punishments for the most grievous sins.

A person acts against a precept of the law in three ways:

1. When he harms his neighbor—through theft, murder, and similar acts—which are properly called “wickedness” because they are contrary to the equity of justice that concerns others.
2. When he sins against himself by a disorder of his own actions, as seen especially in the sins of gluttony and lust. These are called “sins,” as they are disorders within the person.
3. When he sins directly against God through acts like blasphemy and sacrilege. These are called “crimes” because of their gravity.

Omissions, on the other hand, are properly called “delinquencies.”

Then, as if the one to whom he had given the opponent’s role were silent, Job himself assumes the part of the objector and asks about the causes of his punishment. First, since one could object that God is punishing him as an enemy, he rejects this by asking, Why do you hide your face and think of me as your enemy? For it seems wrong for someone to regard another as an enemy without proof. The only fitting cause for hostility is an offense. Thus, it is evident that God considers a person His enemy only when their sins are clear. But Job had asked God to show him his sins, and they had not been shown to him. Therefore, there appeared to be no reason for God to be unfriendly to him. He insinuates this when he asks, “Why do you hide your face?” as if God hated him secretly for a hidden motive. For the face of one who hates is “uncovered” when the reason for the hatred is not hidden.

Second, because one could object that God is punishing him to show His power, he rejects this cause, asking, Do you show your power against the leaf which is driven by the wind? For it is not fitting that a very powerful man should wish to show his power against something very weak. The human condition is compared to a leaf driven by the wind because a person is both frail and weak like a leaf that falls easily. Despite the passing of time and the variety of fortunes, a person is driven about like a leaf in the wind. Therefore, it does not seem fitting to say that God punishes a person merely to display His power.

Third, since one could object that God is punishing him for sins committed in his youth, he also rejects this, asking, Do you break a dry stalk? Do you write bitter things against me, and do you want to consume me for the sins of my youth? For a person in youth is like green grass, but in old age is like a dry stalk. To punish a person in old age for the sins of youth seems like raging violently against a stalk for no longer being green grass. But we should note that in this examination, he does not deviate from the opinion that human adversities are caused by divine judgment. To indicate this, he says, You write bitter things against me, as if to say that bitter things—that is, human adversities—result from the writing of a divine sentence.

Fourth, one could object that even though Job had not committed grave sins, he had still committed some sins that are inevitable in this life, and so he is being punished for them. He also rejects this, saying, Have you placed my foot in fetters; and observed all my paths, and have you considered the traces of my footsteps, I who am consumed like something rotten and like a garment eaten by the moth? Here we should consider that those placed in prison fetters are so bound that they cannot get free. Just as a person’s foot is bound in fetters, so a person’s conduct is bound by the law of divine justice, from which one cannot turn away. This is why he asks, Have you placed my foot in fetters? Divine justice evaluates human deeds not only by what each person does, but also in what spirit and to what end they do it. Thus, he adds, and observed all my paths—that is, my deeds—and have you considered the traces of my footsteps, which refers to the goodwill of the doer and all the circumstances of the deed.

It seems unreasonable that God would take such great care over human acts if they disappear completely with the death of the body—a death that is sometimes natural and sometimes violent. To account for both possibilities, he adds, I who am consumed like something rotten, expressing natural death, and, like a garment eaten by the moth, expressing a violent death. He is saying, in effect: If, as my friends suppose, there is no life other than the present one, which a person loses either by rotting away or by being struck down, it seems unreasonable that God would be concerned with such great strictness about human acts that He would punish a person even for the slightest sins and negligences.