Double Sin

Despite all this, Job did not sin, nor did he ^[m]blame God.  Job 1:22 NASB

Blame – “Job did not sin,” says the text.  The word is ḥāṭāʾ, occurring 580 times in the Tanakh.  It is a description of missing the mark, the same idea that appears in the Greek word for sin.  Without too much elaboration, we can understand what this means.  Despite all the disaster that befell Job, he did nothing to violate the spiritual expectations of a right relationship with God.  He upheld his righteous character.  We breathe a sigh of relief.  We might have acted in some less honorable way, but at least one of us didn’t.

But if this is the case, why add “did not blame God”?  Isn’t that already covered in the statement that he did not sin?  And if it’s not, then what’s the difference between sin and blaming God?  Why does the text make a point of these two things?

The Hebrew translated “did not blame” is the combination of nātan and tiplâ.  Nātan, as you know, basically means “to give,” but since it is used more than 2000 times, it has a wide umbrella of meanings like appoint, allow, bestow, send, pay, turn, thrust, strike, set, commit, etc.  The three broadest senses are give, put (set), and make.  But here, in this verse, it’s the second word that provides the context.  That word is tiplâ.  “The root tpl I and its derivatives have “folly, foolishness’ as their basic meaning but as Jer 23:13 shows, the folly is sinful folly, not mere mental weakness.”^[1]  BDB suggests “unsavouriness, unseemliness,” specifically citing this verse, “he did not ascribe unseemliness to God;”^[2]  So, what’s the difference between sinning and ascribing something inappropriate to God?  Isn’t the latter also sin?

The answer seems to be, “Yes, nātan tiplâ is also sin, but there’s a particular reason it is highlighted here.”  As we know, and Job doesn’t, it is God who actually initiates this contest, and it is God who grants permission for it to proceed.  If anyone is to blame, it is God!  Of course, Job is not privy to this information, but we, the readers, are, and so naturally we raise the question about blame.  The author wants us to realize that Job does not fall into this trap.  In fact, Job’s righteousness exceeds ours since he is the only one who rightfully could question God’s decisions.  And he doesn’t!  It’s not enough to state that Job commits no breach of expectation.  We must also know that he doesn’t view the situation in the same way that we are naturally inclined to view it.  It isn’t ignorance that prevents Job from ascribing something inappropriate to God.  He certainly could have done that since the story hinges on the idea that God prospers and protects the righteous.  Job’s refusal to invoke tiplâ is a bold statement of Job’s view of divine sovereignty.  He doesn’t question God’s involvement because his very life is committed to God’s honor.  When we come to the gospel accounts, we might reflect on this theme.

Of course, we’re outside observers of this cosmic contest.  We’re not in Job’s shoes.  At least not in this story.  But we are participants in life’s misery, suffering, and unjustified evil.  In that regard, we might be tempted to sin by blaming God.  And for this reason, the story includes a specific declaration that Job doesn’t do what we might do.  We are confronted with our own sense of God’s sovereignty.  Just how will we respond?  That’s the real question, isn’t it?

Topical Index: blame, sovereignty, tiplâ, unseemly, inappropriate, Job 1:22

^[1] Youngblood, R. F. (1999). 2534 תָּפַל. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 977). Moody Press.

^[2] Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1977). In Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p. 1074). Clarendon Press.