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!”
Exactly so. Job an imaginary man, like Harry Potter and JeZeus another imaginary man like Hercules. The father of both JeZeus and Hercules – Zeus. LOL
G’lut means exile. Gave the example of the g’lut of Adam from the Garden. The g’lut of Noach in his Ark. The g’lut of the future but as yet unborn children of Avram who would suffer oppression in a foreign land enslaved.
Torah holds life & death, blessing and curse. The best example of a Torah curse: g’lut. The story of Job, a metaphor of a Man who falls into the curse of g’lut. The end of the story of Job redemption from g’lut. A key Torah theme of faith. After over 2000 years of g’lut Jewry returned and reconquered our homelands.
[[As for the difference you make between “covenant” and “oath” I don’t see your point here.]] What caused the floods in the days of Noach? The Gemarah of Sanhedrin teaches: false oaths. The Gemarah of Shevuoth teaches: if a Man swears a false oath, he brings death not to himself alone, nor to his family, nor to his friends, nor to his neighbor, but to his entire nation.
Swearing a false oath qualifies as a Capital Crime worthy of the death penalty! Covenant has no such understanding.
Goyim translations suck. Brit totally different that covenant. When the 13 colonies formed the Republic of the United states. The Hebrew of this Republic ארצות הברית Hence another definition for brit … Republic. Convenant does not imply NOT alliance NOR Republic.
The Talmud continually asks: מאי נפקא מינא what is the difference. The mitzva of keeping shabbat requires making הבדלה – discernment; making subtle distinctions. Like the difference between מלאכה vs. עבודה. Like the difference between the Menorah lights and the 6 Yom Tov + Shabbat “lights”. מאי נפקא מינא בין שבת כנגד יום טוב? What the subtle distinction which separates the holiness of shabbat from the holiness of P’sach – Shevuoth, Rosh HaShannah – Yom Kippur; Sukkoth – Simchat Torah?
The story of Job and the sin of the Gold Calf directly related to one another. Job the story of g’lut & the Golden Calf the story of g’lut. The sin of the Golden Calf applies equally to all generations who worship avoda zarah ie the 2nd Sinai commandment.
Talmud teaches Jewish Oral Torah common law. Xtianity teaches theological constructs. The Talmud never once in any of the 20 volumes ever refers to God. I did offer a logical argument: Faith defined as the pursuit of justice. Just that simple. Justice has nothing to do with some Xtian theological construct of a trinity belief in the Gods.
Abortion a States Rights issue. Trump and his 3 judges appointed to the Supreme Court understand that Rov Vs. Wade perverted the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
The classic definition of “bribe” refers to paying a judge off to rule favorably in your case before the court. So no, the appointment of SC justices who favor States Rights to bureaucratically regulate trade and commerce conducted inside the borders of each and every State of the Union hardly qualifies as a “bribe”. Xtians totally different peoples than Jews. White men do not have afro hair and black skins. This racial metaphor משל\נמשל to the stark day and night difference that forever separates Jews from Xtians.
Avoda Zarah defined as 1) assimilation to all Goyim cultures and customs of peoples who never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. 2)) Intermarriage between Jews and Goyim.
My people have a long history on this planet earth. But history aint the same thing as mussar. The latter applies equally to all generations living on this earth. Histroy does not. It refers to a person or people a long time past dead.
A person tuma, while correct to use the metaphor impure, this metaphor just that only a metaphor. Tuma addresses the dominance of a type of spirits which a person breaths. Dominance of one type of spirit contrasted by the dominance of another type of spirit – herein addresses the subject of tohor vs tuma a significant מאי נפקא מינא.
mosckerr, you need to take responsibility for what you say and do. I didn’t introduce prayer as a subject for discussion. We were discussing politics and Trump. I said Trump was being used as a rod of his judgment upon America and the world. Then I said I voted as a kind of prayer that God would save us from evil men. That doesn’t constitute and invitation to speak of your worldview of prayer.
“Messianic Jews not Jewish” – that’s like saying Italians aren’t Italian if they become American citizens. A descendant of Abraham is his descendant no matter what the man or woman does. One cannot change his origin. Yet, you try, don’t you, and in doing so you expose your prejudice. Excommunicating a Messianic Jew is one thing, but to claim he isn’t Jewish is stealing his birthright. The rest of your statement here is gibberish, unintelligible to a gentile like me. It seems you don’t wish to be honest in your communication. You can be clearer but you are not.
I asked how you could repeat the Sh’ma when you are an atheist, and all you offer is gibberish.
I quoted the Tanach, mosckerr, and you accuse me of offering a Christian translation.
Okay. Here’s the deal. I’ll reply to this set of comments. You can reply to mine or not—your choice. I will not reply to a third round of your comments. You offer nothing. You don’t wish to be clear in your communication, and you take the Jewish translation I quote and tell me I’m offering a Christian translation. You are simply not being honest in our discussion. Therefore, this round ends it. Any reply on your part will be met with silence from me.