Most scholars translate the text in verse-13 to say: “he (God) is one…” vis-à-vis of one mind or purpose (Job23:13), then going on to say that the Lord is unchangeable. However, I think the better rendering is, according to the minority reading, “he is alone…” (so the Vulgate) and even, “it is he, himself, alone” (so Coverdale). The idea seems to be that no one is with God! That is to say, he has no partner, who would be powerful enough to disagree with him and thereby influence his will or purpose for mankind. Certainly, man is unable to change the Lord’s mind or will, but more to the point, neither is there anyone with God who would be able to do so. Thus, the Lord is unchangeable! Whatsoever he proposes to do is what he does, and no one is able to prevent that from occurring (Job 23:13-14; cp. Isaiah 55:8-11).
Job seems to conclude that death without vindication is inevitable, for he understands that his fate is not designed for him, alone. Rather there are many other instances that he could point to, whereby the innocent suffer and die without a favorable judgment on the part of the Lord – “…and many such things are with him” (Job 23:14). Job’s conclusion is given with a kind of moaning, wishing it weren’t true, but yielding to what he knows is true!
Therefore, Job says he is troubled at God’s presence, because the inevitable truth of the matter isn’t encouraging. Job feels helpless, in that the Lord is silent when he prays. God is immovable, unchangeable, and there is absolutely nothing Job is able to do to cause him to reconsider what he has done. So, he’s afraid of God. Job’s inner strength has been melted, and he finds himself troubled in the presence of this Almighty and relentless Authority (Job 23:15-16).
Job isn’t afraid of death, but he laments the fact that the Lord had not taken him in the midst of his prosperity. There, he had been known to be the friend of God, the one whom the Lord had blessed abundantly. Before his trials, Job was honored by men. He was a figure sought after in the gates of the city, and his name was unblemished. Now, however, the friends had labeled him as the chief of sinners (Job 4:7-8; 15:5-6; 22:5; cp. 1Timothy 1:15). Even he didn’t know why the Lord had treated him so terribly. Although he protested that he was righteous, appearances denied his words, according to the popular traditional beliefs, and he would go to his death with everyone believing he was a great sinner.
Hope had faded, as Job sought to remain above the dark waters of the Lord’s purpose for him. It was disheartening for him to be unable to see the order that must be in the chaos that is ever present before him (Job 23:17). He, therefore, concludes that his obedience to moral responsibility, and his sense of justice and truth were no more than worn out tools that don’t avail much in attaining the answers he seeks. With nothing left but a sigh of despair for life and vindication, Job must, finally, admit that the Lord is that Unknown God (cp. Acts 17:23), who was yet to be fully revealed in Christ. While it is true that God could be known to exist through the things he had created (Romans 1:20), the deep things about him, the unknowable things, the things not revealed in his creation, can only be taught us by the Spirit of God, which was yet to be given man (1Corinthians 2:10), because Christ had not yet come and was not yet glorified (John 7:39; 1Corinthians 3:17).
Smoodock's Blog 
38 responses to “It Is He, Himself, Alone!”
As stated previously, the Talmud understands the work of fiction: The Book of Job, as a metaphor to exile/g’lut. The Muslim strict monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment just as does the religious theologies of Xtianity.
“It is He, Himself, Alone!” LOL Bunk. Torah validates that many Gods live, The 10 plagues judged the Gods of Egypt. 20th Century mathematical genius Srinivasa Ramanujan worshipped Gods and Goddesses. Utter arrogance for a religious believer to declare that only one God lives. When clearly the T’NaCH openly declares otherwise. Elyjah build an altar and the priests of Baal offered up their korban sacrifice and he offered up his korban sacrifice. LOL
You believe in the fictional Harry Potter gospel forgery. We Jews have denounced this Roman “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” Czarist secret police forcery as a slander fraud for 2000+ years!
Moshiach/messiah learns from Moshe Rabbeinu, not from Shaul or David. LOL The Talmud compares the Baali T’shuva (t’shuva does not translate as repentant person anymore than brit does translate to “covenant”. Brit – a Torah oath alliance. Just as shalom does not translate unto peace. Peace a noun, shalom a verb. Shalom stands upon the foundation of trust. No trust No shalom. Just that simple.
Tefillah and prayer as different from one another as day from night, up from down, left from right. Prayer resembles saying Tehillem/psalms. Tefillah stands as the offspring of sworn oaths. Mesechta Shabbat of the Talmud asks to the toldoth/offspring follow the Avot/fathers. There it addresses the 39 מלאכות. A word translated as labors, as in do not work on shabbat. The problem with this verb מלאכה, a similar but different verb עבודה likewise translates into the identical word: do not work. So what separates the one term from the other term. Keeping the mitzva/commandment of shabbat requires making a הבדלה/a separation from shabbat from the work week. If a person does not discern מלאכה/skilled labor from עבודה/common unskilled labor – that person has never kept a day of shabbat in his entire life.
I consider myself as an atheist praise God. LOL :))) I thank God every day of my life that I am an atheist. Torah faith does not promote God on the brain. No man can comprehend the Gods just as an ant cannot grasps Ramanujan’s theories of advanced mathematics! Torah does not command Israel to believe in a theological god construct be it Xtian Trinity stupidity or Islamic strict monotheism nonsense. Torah commands through all our prophets: the Will to pursue righteous judicial justice. Just that simple.
I am uncertain how this paragraph ties together:
Are you saying that both Job and the Christian Gospel records are fiction? What does “G’lut” mean. I’m not a clever man, so if you are using terms to appear clever, I will miss your point nearly 100% of the time. You then conclude the paragraph by exiling Adam, Noah and Abraham’s children. Are you accusing God of doing these things to Jews? If so, how are you tying it all in to a fictional Job and (?) fictional gospels? You impress me as a very angry man. I’m not saying you are, but I am saying this is the impression I’m receiving from your comments.
That’s one worldview, mine is different, of course. Is the statement above the “theological construct which attempts to dictate how ‘you’ MUST believe”?
I have no problem with how you describe Egypt’s gods or Canaan’s gods. The same would be true under my understanding that the gods of both countries were men in light of Psalm 82.
As for the difference you make between “covenant” and “oath” I don’t see your point here. As for me, both words are so similar that one could often substitute the one for the other. In fact, the Tanakh translates brit (H1285) thus: “But I will establish My covenant (i.e. brit) with you, and you shall enter the ark, with your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives” (Genesis 6:18) (parenthesis mine in the text). I really don’t see your point in this mincing of words.
Once again let me point out that your comments have no relation whatsoever to my study of Job.
That said, I’ll offer my reply to your statements above. It makes no difference how astonished I am that Israel worshiped a golden calf immediately after experiencing astonishing miracles. The fact is, that is exactly what they did. The Tanakh renders Exodus 32:4 thus: “This he took from them and cast in a mold, and made it into a molten calf. And they exclaimed, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!” – once again I don’t see your point in choosing to say there is a difference between what you say is in the rendering of the Tanakh and what you find in Christian translations of the Hebrew. On a personal note, I have in my Bible suite about 30 translations of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. While I **prefer** some translations over others, I don’t account the ones I don’t **prefer** “bird-brained stupidity.” Just a thought!
While I agree with you that God is not a Trinity, I do question your analysis that this came about by simply mistranslating YHWH. I understand that no one is able to pronounce the name of God, which is revealed in consonants. I too reject placing vowels in the name. If one actually tried to pronounce YHWH all that would come from one’s lips is breath! I know, because I tried. Years ago, when I was discussing similar things with another Jew, when I told him what I did, he was astonished that I had found that out.
Are you saying that Aaron was in error to have rendered YHWH into a word to write down in the Torah? As for the Christian translation. It’s merely a word. Your Ha Shem is how you speak of God without saying YHWH. The saying: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” comes to mind here. I don’t see the blasphemy here that you do.
This is your worldview, and I can respect that, but I don’t have to agree with it. My worldview is different from yours. Your “oath brit alliance with HaShem/the Name\ ended in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem and your Temple. You are no longer in any covenant relationship with the Lord our God. As for your understanding that it is idolatry to phrase YHWH differently than you do, is mere conjecture. I could say that your believing that **your** rendering is the ONLY rendering is, itself, idolatry. But these are harsh words, and I don’t wish to use them as such. Suffice to say that this is the end of that kind of logic, at least this is how it appears to me.
Just a note, we cannot discuss these things forever. I don’t see them leading anywhere at the moment, but I’ll continue for another round to see if there is something you want that I can provide or if you have a legitimate case against what I’m saying in my studies.
Concerning your love for Trump, I understand. Many good folks I know are in love with him because of his stand on abortion. Trump is great at knowing what folks want and giving it to them for a price. I call that a bribe.
Concerning Christianity, avoda zarah, and God, the Devil and ancient history, if Christians and Jews had the same worldview would we be different peoples? You have your worldview, and I have mine. We don’t have to agree with one another to respect one’s freedom to believe what we wish. You are not presenting yourself as a challenge to my worldview, so I don’t feel compelled to argue with you when you state yours and vilify mine, saying it is idolatry. If you wish to be more specific, perhaps I’ll consider responding to your claims. By the way, I believe in God, I don’t believe in a “Devil” except the ‘devil’ (man) that slanders another man. As for mussar v/s ancient history, you show a lot of interest in history when it comes to the persecution of your ancestors. You want better treatment, and I get that, but you are not gaining any friends by demanding respect for yourself and disrespecting folks you speak with.
Once again you demand that my worldview adopts your vocabulary. If you say a person is ritually impure and I say he is ritually unclean, what’s the difference? It’s not like I’m saying take a bath because you’re dirty. We both claim that certain actions make a man ritually unclean before God, and in the light of the Old Covenant, one could not participate in certain social and religious functions. A man coming home from war, had to stay outside the city gates for a time and calm his spirit down, so that he wouldn’t repeat his temporary warlike proclivity among peaceful people.