First let us acquaint ourselves with the teaching of Job on Justification. The subject meets us early in the book,

and it is Eliphaz the Temanite who puts the questions:

`Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his Maker?' (Job 4:17).

It will be seen that while the R.V. retains this rendering, it places in the margin the alternative `be just before

God', `be pure before his Maker'. Rosenmuller has supported this alternative, referring to the use of the Hebrew

preposition in Numbers 32:2; and in Job 9:2 where Job asks `How should man be just with God?'. It is however

practically impossible to decide which is the true rendering for all admit that so far as pure grammar is concerned,

the A.V. translation is correct. Carey says `no sane man would ever suppose that he was more just and more pure

than God', but this is not borne out by experience. Some Christian teachers do not refrain from using the argument

`If God did this or that', or `If God be a God of love', etc., and Eliphaz may have intended his words as a rebuke to

Job. Whatever the exact meaning of the words of Eliphaz it is evident that the doctrine of the righteousness of God,

and the justification of mortal man was one with which all the contributors to the book of Job were familiar. Let us

then pursue this matter, and see how this great doctrine is handled:

`Whom, though I were righteous, yet would I not answer, but I would make supplication to my judge' (Job 9:15).

`If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me' (Job 9:20).

Here, during the early days of Job's distress, is a modesty about his attitude that is commendable. Even though

he thought himself righteous he would not think of answering should God decide otherwise, and he was conscious

that his `own mouth' had already uttered sentiments that would condemn him.

Zophar rebuked Job for maintaining his innocency saying:

`Should not the multitude of words be answered? and should a man full of talk be justified?' (Job 11:2).

Whether Zophar's strictures were themselves `just' remains to be seen. Job rejoins in chapter 13, saying:

`Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him: but I will maintain mine own ways before Him ... Behold now, I

have ordered my cause; I know that I shall be justified' (Job 13:15,18),

Carey's rendering of this is `Behold now, I have opened the proceedings' or more literally `arrayed the trial, or

drawn up everything, as in battle array, and so, ready for the trial'. `I shall be justified' means here `My cause will

be found to be a righteous one'.

In verse 20 there is an allusion to the action of Adam in the Garden of Eden, `then will I not hide myself from

Thee'. In his next speech Eliphaz picks up Job's words `Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of

trouble' (14:1), saying:

`What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?' (Job

returning to the oracle which he had before cited in 4:17,18.

Again we listen to Eliphaz as he reasons with Job:

`Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be profitable unto himself? Is it any pleasure to the

Almighty, that thou art righteous? or is it gain to Him, that thou makest thy ways perfect?' (Job 22:2,3).

Bildad next takes up the point saying:

`How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?' (Job 25:4).

That this question of righteousness and justification is the great matter of contention is made evident by the closing

arguments of chapter 32:

`So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then was kindled the

wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because

he justified himself rather than God' (Job 32:1-3).