For a variety of reasons I’ve spent a fair amount of time reading and re-reading The Book of Job over the past few months. It’s been really thought provoking. I feel like I’ve re-learned some old lessons, challenged several long-held assumptions, and had some new insights, and I feel like writing may help clarify my thoughts. I hope what follows isn’t all self-indulgent drivel, but it might turn out to be just that. You’ve been warned.
Before I get too far I think it fair to give the reader a heads-up. I suspect almost anyone who reads this will know me personally and will therefore be relatively familiar with the broad strokes of my life. Such a reader would be familiar with my faith tradition and might reasonably assume I accept certain beliefs and doctrines that will inform my reading and thoughts. I will take this moment to inform you that I no longer believe many claims or doctrines specific to the LDS Church. I no longer attend church and don’t expect to in the future. If you find this surprising or shocking I apologize. For interested parties I’ve journaled extensively on the subject and have even prepared a series of essays, but couldn’t justify making them public. Maybe I will someday. Maybe I won’t. If you’re curious about why, I’m pretty comfortable with where I’m at and I’m willing to discuss it, but before I get too far off on a tangent I’ll just remind myself that this paragraph is about how the reader should be prepared to encounter some of my questions, observations, interpretations, and conclusions that might be unexpected or openly out of step with Mormon theology and doctrine. Clearly, one doesn’t spend nearly 40 years doing a thing without deeply ingraining it into his life, so a fair portion of the discussion will interface with my own faith journey. Like I said, there’s a high potential for self-indulgent drivel here.
Also, before getting too far, I’ll acknowledge many of these insights were gained through conversation with my good friends Brandon LaMarr, Tyler Haberle, Bryan Buchanan, and Chris Gartz. Their kindness and patience contrasts sharply with some of the interactions Job has with his friends and the difference is not lost on me.
Early on in our discussion Tyler sent me a series of text messages that said:
“Theodicy tends to evoke passion in one of four audiences. Atheists who reject the existence of God or who charge believers in God with being irrational on the grounds that the above is illogical. “Moral” atheists who find the notion of God repugnant because of the amount of evil and suffering. Theists who are troubled by the above two audiences. And finally people who suffer. Which one are you?”
On the off chance you aren’t a pretentious armchair philosopher like me: Theodicy is a fancy Greek word for a vexing question: If God is all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent toward humans, why is humans suffering so prevalent? If your belief/faith is anything like mine was, you probably have a knee-jerk reaction to this question. You already have a doctrinally approved, theologically sound reply to offer. I would encourage you to hold that thought and sit with Job for a while, and see if you don’t have something to learn from his experience anyway. Perhaps there’s a reason this story and text have survived for as long as they have.
Getting back to Tyler’s question, I can honestly answer that I have been a member of all four audiences he outlines at some point. By far the most fruitful has been from the perspective of one who has experienced and witnessed suffering. It seems clear to me that’s why people from many backgrounds continue to engage with The Book of Job. It is my opinion that regardless of the audience in which one starts this text is thought provoking and potentially inspiring. The lessons Job learns come at a price, and I don’t think the most important lessons make any sense unless you’ve wrestled with the troubling and challenging parts.
At the 10,000 foot level Job can be interpreted as an archetype for all humans. Job suffers the loss of his flocks which serve as markers of status and wealth. One could conceivably rebuild wealth except he also loses his health, his skin is broadly and visibly affected and I suspect he’s very itchy because he’s described as scratching it with pottery shards. Beyond this the will and motivation to rebuild his life has certainly been shaken as his children have all been killed in the sudden collapse of a home. To add insult to injury his social status has suffered tremendously. Not only has his loss of wealth removed him from a natural place of power and authority, but he’s been cast out of the elite, respected social hierarchy he previously belonged to, and wound up down below the lowest classes of the social order. These social afflictions aren’t outlined in chapters 1 and 2, but are cataloged later by Job himself in his dialogues with his friends. That’s pretty extreme, how exactly does he serve as a generalizable archetype Mark?
At some point we all suffer some form of physical or financial insecurity, rejection by our peers, Ill health, and ultimately we all die. We all lose loved ones. We can see our own plight in his. The Book of Job tackles questions as an intense argument between a man, his friends, his faith, and the infinite. Why do we suffer? What does it mean? How do we approach those around us who suffer? Can it be prevented? Where does an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god fit into these questions and answers?
I think these questions are really important. I believe the dialogues in The Book of Job are relatable and relevant, and the beliefs expressed in it remain commonly held thousands of years after the text was consolidated. I think the text challenges many of these beliefs. I also think the insights offered are compatible with several traditions as well as modern observations of human behavior. After wrestling with the text for a few months I’ve found it to be far more interesting and inspiring than I have ever given it credit for during previous readings.
Based on my reading iit seems to me there are arguably 3 parts of the Book of Job that may or may not have been developed simultaneously. I think all three portions have value and the text holds up as a composite, but I found that considering the individual sections brought me new insights. There’s a narrative prose section, chapters 1&2, and 42:10-16. These verses give some simple exposition and resolution to Job’s story. They also contain the most troubling ideas, and in my opinion they have a profound impact on how a reader interacts with the poetic dialogues that form the majority of the text. I’ll address the impact shortly, but I’m going to hold off on addressing the troubling/challenging question and implications posed by chapters 1&2 because I actually think they are a big distraction. I know they were for me.
Chapters 3-31 and 38-42:9 form the core of the text. Job and his friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar debate the causes and ways of coping with suffering. Job’s assessment of the nature of the world shifts in these chapters while he challenges, not just his friends’ beliefs, and his own assumptions about life, but The Almighty himself, demanding an audience with God to account for what has happened to him. It’s a far cry from the sanitized “patience of Job” image one might conjure if you’ve never read the text. This section is almost pure dialogue that I suspect was not just derived from an oral tradition but was genuine theatrical drama. The images are too vivid, the linguistic flourishes, the sarcasm, complaints of personal affront, and even dramatic pauses are too numerous, and too compelling to be confined to a written text. I suppose a single great story teller could perform all the parts, but I’d pay good money to see a stage adaptation. This is where the philosophical and emotional heavy lifting is done. I think this section can definitely stand on its own without the narrative introduction and conclusions, and in some ways is actually better if they’re ignored. More on that in a moment. Since I’m not an expert in ancient Hebrew and can’t provide a useful exegetical interpretation of this text, and I don’t believe it represents history in any literal way I will be discussing The Book of Job primarily as drama. I will take it “literally” in that I will assume the characters are in fact speaking the actual thoughts and feelings they are intended to have by the text’s creators, and that these ideas are representative of ideas discussed or embraced by the culture in which the work was created. Does this approach mean it’s not inspired or scriptural? I suppose that depends on what those words mean to you. You don’t have to agree with me on this approach, but I thought it fair to give a head’s up about it.
Finally, chapters 32-37 present what I think is somewhat of a non-sequitur. After Job and his friends are done debating and Job says he’s done talking, but before the god of the whirlwind shows up and addresses Job and his three friends by name, a fourth friend pipes up. Elihu offers essentially the same arguments, but with a few variations and slight twists, as the remainder of Job’s friends. I suspect this is a later addition to the text. It’s conveniently interposed such that Job doesn’t respond to Elihu’s arguments, and God doesn’t acknowledge Elihu, but specifically names Job and his three other friends in his response. Based on one specific argument Elihu makes, and a few other oblique references, I suspect Elihu’s part was added specifically to please a king, emperor, or other ruler. Clearly, this section is dependent on the other dialogues, but the other dialogues make no reference to it so it’s pretty suspect in terms of being part of some “original” version. Regardless, I think it’s worth examining. I suspect that by the time I’m done with the dialogues you won’t want any more from me, so I’m not sure I’ll post anything about it.
So, why exactly do I want to examine the dialogues removed from the context of the narrative introduction and conclusion? First, the introduction informs you that Job was a righteous guy, and that his suffering is not some form of punishment nor a direct or indirect consequence of his own actions. This means we “know” the answer for why Job suffers before the discussion ever starts. We “know” that all the ideas his friends offer are definitely wrong before they say them. There is no doubt, there’s just people browbeating a suffering guy who is supposedly their friend for no reason. It makes it into a dark comedy. It becomes an Iron Age ”Waiting for Godot”. Some may see that as an apt appraisal of “human wisdom”. However it also provokes many questions. Of what use or applicability does the text serve if Job’s suffering is somehow unique? Does the divine rejection of the arguments made apply only because of the divine wager described in Chapter 1? Of course the entire idea that human suffering COULD represent the outcome of a philosophical debate between transcendent beings is more than a little disturbing and off-putting. While these are valid questions and worthy of debate and consideration I think they render the remainder of the text of somewhat dubious utility. I find it difficult to believe that someone would significantly undermine more than 90% of their creative output by throwing such an enormous monkeywrench in at the beginning. Maybe I’m wrong to skip over these questions here, but I know that my responses aren’t nearly as interesting as where I get to when I step past them, trust me I have pages on them I’m sparing you, and this is my journal and I make the rules. Second, and more importantly, ignoring the introduction and the certain knowledge that Job is righteous and he does not “deserve” his suffering changed how I engaged with the dialogues. When you aren’t told who is right and who is wrong before you start, I think you’ll evaluate the arguments and claims of the speakers more honestly. You might just find yourself identifying with the point of view of some of Job’s friends. You might occasionally see Job as prideful and unsympathetic. You might begin to see how pervasive certain beliefs and assumptions are, and how they influence how we interpret the events of our lives. At least that’s what happened to me.
This a 100% sincere plea on my part: try reading The Book of Job starting in chapter 3. Pretend like you don’t have a cultural or personal knowledge of who Job is supposed to be and what he’s meant to symbolize. Pretend like you have a peek into the discussion of four guys sitting on an ash heap in the ancient near east. One of the guys has been run out of town, rejected even by scavengers and beggars. He clearly needs the attention of multiple health professionals. He sits in silence (catatonic?) for who knows how long. He talks about wanting to die. He wishes to have never been born. He reports he can’t sleep because of terrible nightmares. He brushes off the advice given by his friends. In fact he begins raving at them, shaking his fist at the heavens and defiantly demanding answers from God Almighty. Is this guy simply grieving or is he exaggerating his victimhood? Is this guy depressed? Is he delusional, suffering from a psychotic break? What’s his deal? Listen in and tell me with whom you identify? Is the guy sitting on the ground with the rash really as innocent as he proclaims? Do your opinions shift as he questions his friends? Do his counter arguments make sense? What are the underlying beliefs and assumptions these guys have about the nature of the world? What does Job’s description of his rejection tell you about the society he lives in? What, if anything, does his situation have to do with God? Does the response of the god of the whirlwind surprise you? Is it satisfying? Is any of this applicable in a world that embraces the New Testament? Is any of this applicable in a world that rejects The Fear of The Lord? That’s a lot of questions, but I think approaching the arguing men on the ash heap with more humility, more curious ears, and less confident eyes makes this story come alive. Once the thought occurred to me to approach it in this way I haven’t been able to turn away.
I will also quickly add that reading a modern English translation has also been more than a little helpful. I like the New English Translation because it has something like 22,000 translator’s notes which occasionally shed light on alternative meanings or otherwise enhance the reading experience. It, like many others, is available free on the internet. I’m sure many other excellent translations exist. Bottom line I think reading something written in a language you actually speak and understand is likely to be more fruitful than believing you have any mastery of contemporary English from the better part of half a millennium in the past.
At this rate I’m never going to finish.
Job’s Initial Complaint
So here we are listening in. Four guys sitting on an ash heap. We aren’t sure how long they’ve known one another, but they’re sitting together in silence, perhaps they’ve been there for hours or even days, some might speculate a week. Is the silence awkward? Perhaps nobody knows quite what to say. In deference to their friend they wait for him to speak. The guy with the rash picks furiously at a spot on his arm, he progresses from a gentle rub, to vigorous scratching and finally to intense digging with a piece of broken pottery he clutches with unnatural tenacity. Is it from the wreckage of his former home? Finally a mixture of puss and blood run down his arm, the recognizable catharsis of FINALLY satisfying the urge to scratch the itch passes across his face, but only for a moment. Within the space of a few breaths he has begun the process again at a different location, this time his leg. The tension and awkwardness grows. It’s nearly unbearable. Suddenly he looks up and meets the eyes of his companions. Holding back tears, his voice breaks with the mixture of fear, frustration, confusion, and despair:
Let the day on which I was born perish!
He carries on for a few minutes wishing he had never been born, eventually transitioning to wishing he’d died at birth:
Why did I not die at birth, and why did I not expire as I came out of the womb?
Finally, recognizing that retroactive changes might catastrophically disrupt the space-time continuum he switches to wishing that God would simply kill him, or at least let him die.
Why does God give light to one who is in misery, and life to those whose soul is bitter, to those who wait for death that does not come, and search for it more than for hidden treasures, who rejoice even to jubilation, and are exultant when they find the grave?
Clearly Job is miserable. I’m not a mental health professional, but it seems like he’s in crisis. The physical distress of his skin disease may explain it, and I do know from experience, my own and that of my patients, that the stress of public judgment about rashes as well as the chronic irritation and distraction from diseases of the largest organ of the human body can genuinely cause severe anxiety, depression and hopelessness, but his issues seem to be more than skin deep. Job gives us one insight into his suffering when he says:
Why is light given to a man whose way is hidden, and whom God has hedged in? For my sighing comes in place of my food, and my groanings flow forth like water. For the very thing I dreaded has happened to me, and what I feared has come upon me. I have no ease; I have no quietness; I cannot rest; turmoil has come upon me.
Job puts forth his assessment that his suffering is an affliction from God. In the following chapters his friends will explicitly argue that his suffering is a manifestation of divine judgment, and therefore he must be guilty of some sin to merit his status. That feels like a terrible thing to say to someone who has just said he wants to die, and it is, but I think it worth noting here that Job also assumes his suffering comes at the hand of God. As best as I can tell, he never waivers in this belief. He never doubts God’s role in his experience. A major contributor to his suffering, beyond his physical affliction, is the fact that his fundamental assumption about the connection between a just, benevolent god, and human suffering are not compatible with his current situation. Is this a valid assumption? In Job’s culture it appears there can be no other. If his belief has some validity, is it limited in scope? Is ALL suffering a manifestation of divine punishment? Is it true only in a limited sense? Is it somehow figuratively true?
There’s a second source of suffering here.
For the very thing I dreaded has happened to me, and what I feared has come upon me. I have no ease; I have no quietness; I cannot rest; turmoil has come upon me
He reveals that he was scared of exactly this situation. The details of his situation aren’t entirely clear to us yet; he’ll elaborate on that later, but he was aware something like this could happen and he wanted no part in it. He’s suffering because the exact form of suffering he was trying to avoid is now consuming his life.
Once upon a time in a deer park in India a guy named Siddhartha Gautama told his friends he’d had some important insights into life. After years of wandering, study, and contemplation, he told them that he realized that suffering, emotional pain and the inability to be fully satisfied, is an unavoidable feature of life. Suffering may take many forms, and has many proximal causes, but he identified the root cause of suffering as craving. Craving can manifest as the desire for a specific object or outcome, or may take the form of aversion, the desire to avoid a specific thing or outcome, but both desire and aversion are manifestations of craving.
Taking these insights together we can see in Job, and perhaps in our own lives, that his natural desire to avoid suffering actually adds to the intensity of his present anguish. Sid taught his friends that the way to limit or eliminate one’s suffering is to liberate ourselves from cravings and desires. Billions of people have adopted this point of view since that day. I’m not going to pretend to have a good comprehension of Buddhism, the Dhammacakkappavattana sutta, or even the four noble truths, but I couldn’t help but notice this aspect of Job’s situation.
A few more questions occur to me. If he genuinely did believe in a direct correlation between individual righteousness and divine blessings, with evil coupled directly to punishment, did Job think that his personal rectitude would protect him from calamity and suffering? I think such a set of assumptions would lead someone to that closing lament. Take a moment to consider Job’s situation. How would beliefs like these shape your relationship with your god? Would it become transactional in nature? How would such a view inform your righteous acts? Could your acts be genuinely altruistic if each one is seen as a means of purchasing blessings or preventing cursings? If you identify suffering with unrighteousness or divine judgment, would that impact your ability to empathize with those who are suffering?
I’m going to assert my 5th amendment right to not incriminate myself and I’m not going to answer these questions here.
Eliphaz Responds
The tension hasn’t been broken, but at least the silence has. Eliphaz, having seen Job’s physical wounds, and hearing of his emotional ones seeks to call Job’s mind to what Job himself has shared with others in the past:
Look, you have instructed many; you have strengthened feeble hands. Your words have supported those who stumbled, and you have strengthened the knees that gave way. But now the same thing comes to you, and you are discouraged; it strikes you, and you are terrified. Is not your piety your confidence, and your blameless ways your hope?
Here we learn a few more things about Job and his friends. His words imply that Job knows and believes what he’s about to say. Job has shared them with others who have been afflicted in the past. The belief that faith and acts of piety give confidence and protection to the faithful is present here as well. Once again we see the underlying assumption about retributive justice relating to a transactional faith. I probably sound like a broken record here, but these are the ideas on trial in these dialogues.
Verse 6 lays out the positive side of this equation, the following verses the negative
Call to mind now: Who, being innocent, ever perished? And where were upright people ever destroyed? Even as I have seen, those who plow iniquity and those who sow trouble reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, and by the blast of his anger they are consumed. There is the roaring of the lion and the growling of the young lion, but the teeth of the young lions are broken. The mighty lion perishes for lack of prey, and the cubs of the lioness are scattered.
Do you find these ideas foreign? The wicked are punished, the righteous prosper. This goes all the way back to Genesis. Disobedience is met with expulsion from the garden, toil, and death. This theme is repeated often in scripture and theology of many stripes. This is to say I don’t think Eliphaz is being some monumentally judgmental jerk here. This is what he genuinely believes. It is what Job genuinely believes. Yeah, it is really tonedeaf to say this to someone who is suffering so badly he wants to die. I think that’s part of the point. Job is a human being. He is in desperate need of comfort. His friends have come, they have sat in silence with him; I suspect this represents adherence to traditional cultural norms of comfort of a mourning person, but clearly he needs something more, and what does he get? He gets told to remember his faith. He’s told ‘we all know what’s going on here Job, you are suffering, suffering comes from divine punishment of the wicked, and there’s an obvious solution. Again, this sounds super harsh. Who would say something like that? Drama often magnifies the more subtle interactions of life. Thus we see an insidious trap laid by the wicked/punishment, righteous/blessing belief paradigm. Not only has it contributed to Job’s confusion and suffering because he felt like he might be able to avoid calamity through his own righteousness, but it also pre-defines judgment when calamity occurs. There’s only one logical conclusion.
I included the bit about breaking the teeth of the lion because this image is taken up at least twice more in the dialogues. The idea of the divine justice and judgment of God manifested by disabling a predator is taken in a very interesting direction that I think really gets to the heart of the message of this Book. We’ll get there. Eventually.
This brings me back to the questions I posed earlier. Is the belief in a god of retributive justice valid? If so, to what extent? Even if you believe in this concept to a limited degree does this bias your interactions with your fellow humans? If so, should you seek to mitigate that bias? Could there be unintentional harm to your friends and relationships from ignoring this bias?
I do not believe the Book of Mormon represents factual history, but I think there are still some great ideas in it. I can’t help thinking about these verses.
Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just.
This is King Benjamin admonishing his people in some practical ways to exercise their faith. The full quote goes like this:
But ye will teach them to walk in the ways of truth and soberness; ye will teach them to love one another, and to serve one another. And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just— But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
Eliphaz keeps talking. He probably shouldn’t. Basically he starts throwing verbal haymakers at Job. I can see the dramatic delivery taking a twisting of the knife type tone here. This is some cold, calculating stuff:
If God puts no trust in his servants and attributes folly to his angels, how much more to those who live in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, who are crushed like a moth? They are destroyed between morning and evening; they perish forever without anyone regarding it. Is not their excess wealth taken away from them? They die, yet without attaining wisdom.
Did you catch that? Houses of clay, crushed like moths, excess wealth taken away. I suspect these are images and proverbs with which the audience would have been familiar so these lines could simply represent Eliphaz trotting out platitudes, but these are two of the tragedies Job reportedly suffered. I realize this is me cheating. I said to pretend to ignore chapters 1 and 2, but I meant the bet between God and The Accuser, the details about Job’s trials are fine to bring to the party. It makes the drama really pop. Cold as Ice. Lest we think maybe it was unintentional I would point you to chapter 5 verses 3 and 4:
I myself have seen the fool taking root, but suddenly I cursed his place of residence. His children are far from safety, and they are crushed at the place where judgment is rendered, nor is there anyone to deliver them.
There’s no way that’s a coincidence. He’s calling out Job’s circumstances specifically as well known punishments for the wicked and foolish. There’s a reason Job eventually lets a few of his own insults and barbs loose. With friends like these…
Eventually he turns Job’s attention toward the positive side of the equation. He offers Job a piece of advice that arguably sets the remainder of the action/debate into motion.
But as for me, I would seek God, and to God I would set forth my case.
Job may have been heading in this direction on his own, but there’s no clear indication of it prior to Eliphaz’s first speech. Eliphaz doesn’t mean for Job to challenge God, his goodness, judgment, or power. There’s no indication prior, or in what will follow that he doesn’t firmly believe Job needs to repent of his ways. He follows this advice up with many examples and images about what turning to God in these circumstances can do for a person. Again, the assumption is that Job has done something wrong, his punishment is just, but God’s benevolence is such that Job can and will be restored if he changes his ways.
Therefore, blessed is the man whom God corrects, so do not despise the discipline of the Almighty. For he wounds, but he also bandages; he strikes, but his hands also heal.
Later he says
You will be protected from malicious gossip and will not be afraid of the destruction… and you will know that your home will be secure, and when you inspect your domains, you will not be missing anything. You will also know that your children will be numerous and your descendants like the grass of the earth. You will come to your grave in a full age.
Once again he may be quoting well known proverbs, but these strike me as pretty specific. Job may be in crisis, but I doubt he misses this. Is Eliphaz genuinely trying to be helpful by pointing out that there are actually proverbs and promises relating specifically to Job’s situation? Maybe. If it seems like Job’s friends are being harsh I may do well to recall to mind that one should not ascribe to malice that which can reasonably be attributed to ineptitude. We all stick a foot in our mouth occasionally. Perhaps Eliphaz has just done so here. Several times.
Sometimes I’ve felt like I can see a clear reason for why a situation has gone sideways on a friend, family member, or patient. Knowledge and a different perspective often help solve problems. It’s the reason I have a job. I honestly don’t think the lesson of the Book of Job is to entirely refrain from sharing insights and advice to those who suffer. I like my job. I think Job’s friends offer a master class in what not to do. Eliphaz hasn’t asked a single question. He hasn’t interrogated Job’s experience or point of view. What sort of context does he have to render judgment? He didn’t even acknowledge Job’s emotional response to his situation. He has implied Job is a hypocrite for not employing the faith he’s encouraged others to have. He’s also suggested Job is either wicked or foolish, and that there is an obvious solution to his problems. In a sense he’s offering a diagnosis and a remedy that ignores the chief complaint of the patient.
Because of my job I have a lot more opportunities than the average bear to screw up these types of interactions. I also have a lot of practice in getting them right. I’m not gonna claim to be especially great as a healer, but I acknowledge that there is a lot of actual and implied trust patients put on our interactions, and I take that trust seriously and work hard to bring my “A game” to work every day. There’s some outlandish statistic about how quickly doctors interrupt patients after they start talking, something 17 seconds. Sometimes patients need direction, sometimes their story isn’t particularly helpful to getting a correct diagnosis. Medical professionals often have significantly more work to do than time allows. There’s a lot of reasons why we as a profession behave this way. However, letting the patient tell their story in their own way often reveals important details about who they are, what they’re experiencing, what their hopes and expectations for the visit are, all of which inform the diagnostic and therapeutic process. Depriving oneself of such information can make the job significantly harder, and can result in an unsatisfactory experience for patient and physician. I say this outloud several times a day, “Rule number 1 of being a doctor is don’t hurt your patient, a lot of people think it’s to help, but doing my best to help is actually rule number 2”. There is harm in misdiagnosis, aka rendering false judgment. There is harm in offering inappropriate cures. Asking questions, actually listening to the person, not just the words, seeking to contextualize the experience are all ways of informing our empathy and responses to suffering in others. I don’t think I’ve ever told anyone their suffering was a curse from God for their wickedness, but when I consider my interactions with those around me who suffer I cringe at times when my response has been more like Eliphaz and less like King Benjamin. Hopefully that wasn’t too self-indulgent.
If I don’t start tackling more and move a bit faster this is going to take forever
Job once again sets forth his complaint, and while continuing to express a desire to die rather than go on living the way he is, he points out the cold detachment of his friend’s response, but ultimately he takes Eliphaz’s suggestion, just not in the way Eliphaz intended. He expresses a desire for an answer from God.
Chapters 6 and 7 are full of vivid images describing his suffering. The most striking are found in 7:4-9
If I lie down, I say, ‘When will I arise?’ And the night stretches on, and I toss and turn restlessly until the day dawns. My body is clothed with worms and dirty scabs; my skin is broken and festering. My days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle, and they come to an end without hope. Remember that my life is but a breath, that my eyes will never again see happiness. The eye of him who sees me now will see me no more; your eyes will look for me, but I will be gone. As a cloud is dispersed and then disappears, so the one who goes down to the grave does not come up again.
This personal reflection comes within the context of a larger meditation on the finitude of human life. The Tibetan Buddhist “Wheel of life” represents many of the motivations, teachings, and actions that are believed to underpin human existence and behavior. Once again I’m not going to pretend to much of anything about Buddhist religion or philosophy, but I think it telling that the realms of existence and motivation are consistently surrounded and held by a figure representing impermanence and death. Job is being confronted in a very comprehensive way with the realities of impermanence and death. Perhaps coming face to face with these realities contributes to his distress. In the context of a Christian faith tradition this idea may seem heretical, but I’ll submit there is plenty of textual evidence that Job doesn’t seem to believe in an afterlife. Job 19:26 notwithstanding, Job repeats multiple times in his speeches that he is of the opinion that death will be the end of him. I’ll address the context and alternative interpretation of his stated belief that he will see God in the flesh when we get there. I note this because a belief that death is the end of human existence informs Job’s conceptualization of the immediacy of divine justice and judgment. The “do good, get good, and do bad, get bad” paradigm in which Job appears to operate isn’t in the interest of some eternal reward. The idea that life is a trial to be granted something greater after this life into eternity doesn’t appear to be a motivating force. This doesn’t refute that belief for those who hold it, but I think keeping that in mind should inform our interpretation of the words Job and his friends speak. These discussions are very much concerned with divine will manifesting in the here and now.
Verse 11 continues this illustration
Therefore, I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul. Am I the sea, or the creature of the deep, that you must put me under guard? If I say, ‘My bed will comfort me, my couch will ease my complaint,’ then you scare me with dreams and terrify me with visions, so that I would prefer strangling and death more than life. I loathe it; I do not want to live forever; leave me alone, for my days are a vapor!
Job has hit rock bottom, he sees no risk in complaining. Additionally we learn Job’s anguish derives not just from his financial, personal, and bodily losses, but he is tortured in his dreams. He interprets even nightmares as divine punishment. I’ll once again ask: do we believe this guy? Do we accept his claim that he makes in chapter 6 that he is being hunted by God? If a friend told you his nightmares and mental confusion came as divine punishment, what would you think? Would you doubt the claim? Would you think that maybe the friend was misinterpreting his or her experience? Perhaps this friend has an undiagnosed mental illness, how would that inform your interactions and assessment of the overall situation? When you witness mental illness coexisting with physical suffering do you play a chicken and egg game? When you see an unemployed, unhoused person behaving erratically in a public space do you assume they have a substance abuse problem that has created their physical suffering and mental illness? How often do we consider the idea that mental illness came before substance abuse, unemployment, and homelessness? I am definitely guilty of not considering the latter. Many personal and professional interactions over the years have forced me to reconsider this immediate response.
At the end of chapter 7 Job turns his attention away from himself to the thing he assumes to be the source of his misery. He begins to question God.
Will you never look away from me, will you not let me alone long enough to swallow my spittle? If I have sinned—what have I done to you, O watcher of men? Why have you set me as your target? Have I become a burden to you? And why do you not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity? For now I will lie down in the dust, and you will seek me diligently, but I will be gone.
Once again, implicit in these questions is that Job sincerely believes suffering and punishment is directly related to sin, and he honestly believes his suffering is unwarranted. This isn’t the most forceful or direct challenge Job will make, but he’s doing exactly as his friend suggested with a bit more bite than expected.
Returning to the question of friendship, in chapter 6 verse 14 Job observes
To the one in despair, kindness should come from his friend even if he forsakes the fear of the Almighty.
Job here sets up a hierarchy of duty that foreshadows a change in his understanding of the nature of God and justice. I am no scholar of ancient near east / mesopotamian literature or culture, but my limited experience of reading the Bible and a few other texts lead me to believe “Fear of the Almighty” was a cultural idiom that contextually meant more than obedience stemming from fear. However a rather literal interpretation of these words jives well with the worldview on display from Job and his friends. Job’s claim here is that the duty of friendship supersedes one’s judgment of the rectitude of that friend. To people familiar with the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus this may be acceptable or even obvious, but recalling that Jesus’ teachings were somewhat radical in his time, remembering how often Mosaic law requires casting out, and the death penalty for transgression, and seeing the stress placed on modern-day relationships when family members stray from cultural/historical norms of religion and society all lead me to believe this proposed hierarchy may still be a radical proposition. It is easy to condemn others for rejecting and judging others, but consider the imperative it puts forth. We all have beliefs, and moral principles that are often at the core of our identity and are generally deeply entrenched. These beliefs represent our conception of reality, and how we value things like fairness vs. cheating, care vs. harm, authority vs. subversion, loyalty vs. betrayal, sanctity vs. degradation, and liberty vs. oppression are manifestations of how we believe things SHOULD be. It is actually asking a lot to look past transgressions of what a person should do and support a friend regardless. Particularly when those bounds and values aren’t necessarily arrived at by personal determination, but by divine decree. It’s asking someone to look past the rules they believe God has set forth and be a friend anyway. Think about it, that’s a big ask. Is Job right in his characterization of friendship?
Job then launches into what I imagine would have been a very relevant metaphor of comparing his friends to a seasonal desert stream, and how the variability of these streams could disrupt travel, trade and endanger life. I think it unlikely Job discusses desert travel and caravans from Tema with Eliphaz the Temanite as mere coincidence. It makes sense to me that a raging stream from spring runoff could force a caravan to change routes which could lead to places where water sources are unknown or tenuous and endanger an entire caravan. Alternatively, if a party expects water to be present at a given time of year, and there is none, that too would be dangerous. Writing this in the first week of September 2022 living in the water scarcity of the Colorado River watershed, and our looming challenges, juxtaposed with the devastation caused by intense monsoonal rains and glacier melt in Pakistan these images are more salient to me now than ever before. Job’s friends are overflowing with condemnation and advice, but short on empathy and comfort.
At the end of this metaphor Job puts forth another accusation:
The caravans of Tema looked intently for these streams; the traveling merchants of Sheba hoped for them. They were distressed because each one had been so confident; they arrived there, but were disappointed. For now you have become like these streams that are no help; you see a terror and are afraid.
Job implies that his friends are scared. Are they scared to associate with him because of his skin disease? Are they scared because God has clearly judged him, and perhaps sympathizing with him too much could bring on guilt by association for them? Treason by giving comfort and aid to the enemy? Are they scared because they see how profound his suffering is and their beliefs about justice are being challenged by his experience?
Perhaps Job’s needs will outstrip their willingness and ability to help. Job suggests this might be it.
Have I ever said, ‘Give me something, and from your fortune make gifts in my favor’? Or, ‘Deliver me from the enemy’s power, and from the hand of tyrants ransom me’?
Is Job correct in his assessment? Is he being too demanding? Too needy? Is he emotionally blackmailing his friends here? Do we withhold from a friend because of fear? Why?
Boom. 2 full chapters in just 2 pages.
Bildad’s Response
There’s not much to Bildad’s first speech. He offers essentially the same point of view and advice. God is just. Your suffering is a sign you need to repent, just get on with it. However, I think there are two things worth noting. I suggested Eliphaz was perhaps putting salt in Job’s wounds by using images and examples parallel to what Job was suffering. Bildad kicks it up a few notches when he says:
Does God pervert justice? Or does the Almighty pervert what is right? If your children sinned against him, he gave them over to the penalty of their sin.
Ouch. Is he just being a jerk? Is this a manifestation of his sincere belief that punishment is directly related to personal conduct? What don’t we know about Job’s family and their lifestyle? What sort of transgressions could be worthy of death?
There are a few times when his friends try to give their advice more authority by pointing out that these aren’t just personal opinions they’re sharing. Eliphaz started his speech by pointing out he was sharing what Job had shared with others. Bildad lends ancient authority to his words when he says:
For inquire now of the former generation, and pay attention to the findings of their ancestors; For we were born yesterday and do not have knowledge, since our days on earth are but a shadow. Will they not instruct you and speak to you, and bring forth words from their understanding?
These judgments aren’t just the point of view of a few dudes, like college age American males talking objectivism late at night, but represents a traditional point of view broadly held in their culture. Widely adopted, inherited, cultural beliefs exist for a reason; how carefully should we examine such beliefs, their validity, and applicability in our lives?
Job’s response to this second wave of accusation is to further explore his perceived relationship to the divine. Far from refuting the ability and authority of God to punish or elevate man, Job outlines God’s power over the natural world and human life:
He is wise in heart and mighty in strength— who has resisted him and remained safe? He who removes mountains suddenly, who overturns them in his anger, he who shakes the earth out of its place so that its pillars tremble, he who commands the sun, and it does not shine and seals up the stars, he alone spreads out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea. He makes the Bear, Orion, and the Pleiades, and the constellations of the southern sky; he does great and unsearchable things, and wonderful things without number.
Job notes the obvious asymmetry that exists between man as creation and God as all -powerful creator and arbiter of justice:
For he is not a human being like I am, that I might answer him, that we might come together in judgment. Nor is there an arbiter between us, who might lay his hand on us both, who would take his rod away from me so that his terror would not make me afraid. Then would I speak and not fear him, but it is not so with me.
Job consistently proclaims his innocence, he believes he hasn’t transgressed divine laws worthy of punishment, and also believes his suffering comes directly from an all-powerful God. This sets up an untenable position. In his and our society when we have been wronged by another an appeal can be made to have disputes arbitrated by a third, ideally disinterested, party who renders judgment and can both punish and compel restoration. Job recognizes that in his situation God would be both a party to his complaint and the judge arbitrating his case:
How much less, then, can I answer him and choose my words to argue with him. Although I am innocent, I could not answer him; I could only plead with my judge for mercy. If I summoned him and he answered me, I would not believe that he would be listening to my voice— he who crushes me with a tempest and multiplies my wounds for no reason.
How can he expect to be heard in an impartial sense? This of course cuts directly to the core of belief in a god. By definition believing that a moralistic, omnipotent god exists generally implies the necessity of surrendering judgment to it, “submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father”. Depending on the demands of the god, this may serve individuals and groups very well, or may provoke monstrous behavior. I don’t really care to get too far into that question here. This type of faith, and attribution of the events of the world to divine will permeate Job’s worldview. In this context Job’s friends see and continue to point out the obvious causes, and the course to remediate Job’s situation. Such is the rational response when one feels one understands a system.
Perhaps Job and his family are in fact guilty of sin? Proclaiming oneself to be totally innocent, at the very least, smacks of pride. If Job is guilty, then this worldview holds and can and should be employed without disruption or revision.
Job feels differently. After recognizing inconsistencies between his beliefs and lived experience, he begins to question his underlying assumptions about life and God. I think this is a turning point in the drama, the foundation is being laid for act 2. I think it worth noting the various ways of countenancing, assimilating, or rejecting new information when it conflicts with entrenched belief. Up until now Job has focused almost exclusively on his own suffering and how he believes it unfair. Perhaps this experience has opened his eyes to observations he’d never had before, or maybe he begins to speak openly about inconsistencies he’s noted for many years, but he’s never spoken them in front of his friends and fellow believers? A lifelong believer who has acted upon these beliefs with genuine faith, and has even gone out of his way to share with others, now struggles to reconcile these beliefs with personal experience and observations of the world that don’t fit. I believe this fits what is commonly referred to as “faith crisis” in 21st century religious parlance. This claim cuts directly against the belief that The Book of Job is the story of absolutely unwavering faith. Perhaps this is just me seeing what I want to see here. That’s certainly possible. However I think the comparison is valid, so be prepared for me to point out this process as we proceed.
I will not dispute that Job maintains his faith after passing through his faith crisis, but I will also argue that his faith is fundamentally different having been refined by observation, discussion, reflections, and experience. Perhaps, in addition to insights about the nature and purpose of suffering, friendship, justice, and human relationship with the divine, Job has something to say about how we approach challenges to our beliefs? That’s a lot more compelling than a simple narrative about blind faith.
Specific to Job beginning to question his underlying assumptions about life he offers this observation.
It is all one! That is why I say, ‘He destroys the blameless and the guilty.’ If a scourge brings sudden death, he mocks at the despair of the innocent. If a land has been given into the hand of a wicked man, he covers the faces of its judges; if it is not he, then who is it?
He recognizes that disasters kill entire populations, not just the wicked. Job also observes that corrupt authorities are not struck down, but are allowed to reign without obvious divine or earthly restraint. You and I recognize these sorts of truths. Modern belief systems often have a number of doctrines, dogmas, and mechanisms for reconciling divinity with imperfection in this world. Job appears to be seriously wrestling with these realities for the first time. Imagine that, a prosperous man suddenly loses everything and he gains a new perspective on life. Where have we heard that one before? Some dramatic plots will never cease to be compelling.
Three chapters in less than 3 pages. We’re humming along now.
Zophar Chimes in
Zophar doesn’t offer a response to Job’s observation that what is commonly accepted as divine punishment afflicts more than just the wicked. However, he suggests Job is way out of line:
For you have said, ‘My teaching is flawless, and I am pure in your sight.’ But if only God would speak, if only he would open his lips against you and reveal to you the secrets of wisdom— for true wisdom has two sides— so that you would know that God has forgiven some of your sins.
Two points to consider here. Zophar softens the idea of absolute justice. Zophar suggests that not only is Job not faultless, and deserves punishment, but that Job’s punishment is actually less severe than what he deserves. While the idea of a gracious and forgiving deity resonates with many modern Christians, this point of view is not clearly evidenced by the speeches given thus far.
The other thought that occurs to me is to note this prediction for later use. God shows up, and teaches Job. Zophar is of the opinion that God will teach Job the two sided nature of wisdom. Does God address this when he shows up? What two sided wisdom is Zophar talking about? The immediate context suggests one side of the coin may be forgiveness. Maybe. The remainder of his speech suggests that, like his other friends, his two sided wisdom is wickedness/punishment on one side with rectitude/ blessing on the other:
For he knows deceitful men; when he sees evil, will he not consider it? But an empty man will become wise, when a wild donkey’s colt is born a human being. As for you, if you prove faithful, and if you stretch out your hands toward him, if iniquity is in your hand—put it far away, and do not let evil reside in your tents. For then you will lift up your face without blemish; you will be securely established and will not fear.
My favorite moment here is “when a wild donkey’s colt is born a human being”. Zophar is calling Job an ass. Some insults really have staying power. I always love Shakespearean comedy because of the flowery language used to make insults and fart jokes. I’m not gonna lie: Old Testament insult humor is appreciated.
On a more serious note read chapter 11. Ask yourself if you agree with Zophar’s arguments and teaching in principle. If he weren’t insulting a known good guy like Job might we be nodding our heads vigorously with his assessment of human pride and folly? Are we bad people if we agree with Job’s friends? I don’t think so. I think it should give us pause and serve as a caution for when we find ourselves in a similar situation.
Job doesn’t take kindly to being called an ass. He responds:
Without a doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you
The translator’s notes of the New English Translation suggest “you are the people” means that his friends represent conventional wisdom and popular opinion. “Wisdom will die with you” feels really sarcastic. He goes on to say :
For calamity, there is derision (according to the ideas of the fortunate)— a fate for those whose feet slip. But the tents of robbers are peaceful, and those who provoke God are confident— who carry their god in their hands.
He points out the consequence of having such a clear and definite view of suffering. If anyone who suffers calamity must be guilty of sin, passing judgment on those who suffer occurs naturally, and rather than fostering empathy, it invites derision. The exact type of derision Job has described, and that his friends consistently display. He combines this with the fact that robbers and idolaters can live peaceful lives to suggest that this belief of strict, divine retributive justice is not compatible with observed reality.
Job makes crystal clear for the remainder of chapter 12 he is not questioning the power of God to do great things, or to subject even the powerful to his will. Job sees and recognizes the same patterns his friends see, but suspects maybe they’re missing something. Basically, Job is suggesting recall bias. Of all the events in the world there are plenty of examples of people receiving their comeuppance, and Job disputes neither these events, nor their interpretation. In fact, that’s what is making him so upset.
Indeed, my eyes have seen all this; my ears have heard and understood it. What you know, I know also; I am not inferior to you! But I wish to speak to the Almighty, and I desire to argue my case with God.
For anyone wishing to maintain an image of a serene, humble Job waiting patiently while suffering torment after affliction, if you haven’t already done so, now would be the moment to stop reading. Job is about to get really self-righteous and borderline blasphemous. As a person raised in a tradition where “sign seeking” was explicitly discouraged, Job is walking a path perilously similar to that of Sherem and Korihor. One could reasonably argue there’s a fundamental difference in that Job explicitly believes in God and sincerely seeks answers, and I won’t argue otherwise, but it still scandalizes me. You can tell he is in what can charitably be described as a heightened emotional state as he insults his friends before launching in on his request to stand toe to toe with the Almighty and demand an explanation. He has hit rock bottom and has nothing to lose.
In all seriousness Chapters 12-14 are really fantastic stuff and I’m tempted to just quote the entire speech right here, but I’ll try to confine myself to the dramatic highlights and salient points. This one hits hard for me personally. I’ve had someone say something like this to me, and it stings, “But you, however, are inventors of lies; all of you are worthless physicians!”. He then points out none of them would dare do what he is proposing, suggesting maybe he knows their imperfections and won’t have his character impugned by the likes of them, and then goes on to say:
Your maxims are proverbs of ashes; your defenses are defenses of clay. Refrain from talking with me so that I may speak; then let come to me what may. Why do I put myself in peril, and take my life in my hands? Even if he slays me, I will hope in him; I will surely defend my ways to his face.
You gotta love the confidence.
Moreover, this will become my deliverance, for no godless person would come before him… See now, I have prepared my case; I know that I am right. Who will contend with me? If anyone can, I will be silent and die.
That’s putting your money where your mouth is. His direct challenge to God follows.
Only in two things spare me, O God, and then I will not hide from your face: Remove your hand far from me and stop making me afraid with your terror. Then call, and I will answer, or I will speak, and you respond to me. How many are my iniquities and sins? Show me my transgression and my sin. Why do you hide your face and regard me as your enemy?
I remember the first time I actually read Job. These words blew my mind. This was not the “patience of Job” type talk I was expecting.
Next, he contextualizes why he is so eager to have this rendezvous; he knows life is short and seeks understanding about why a loving god would allow something like this to happen:
Man, born of woman, lives but a few days, and they are full of trouble… Do you fix your eye on such a one? And do you bring me before you for judgment?… Since man’s days are determined, the number of his months is under your control; you have set his limit, and he cannot pass it… But there is hope for a tree: If it is cut down, it will sprout again, and its new shoots will not fail. Although its roots may grow old in the ground and its stump begins to die in the soil, at the scent of water it will flourish and put forth shoots like a new plant. But man dies and is powerless; he expires—and where is he?…so man lies down and does not rise; until the heavens are no more, they will not awake nor arise from their sleep.
As an impatient person prone to rash, and harsh judgments, guilty of ingratitude and complaint I never found the pious, long-suffering Job I had always imagined very compelling. It’s probably one reason I never bothered to read it. Who needs 42 chapters of a patient suffering guy? This guy sounds like a normal dude to me. He’s tried to do exactly what he believes he should, but it just keeps coming. When he seeks consolation from his friends they accuse him and his dead children of wickedness, and he “goes off”. I can definitely relate.
We find ourselves at the end of act 1. Job has firmly set himself on a challenging journey. He is suffering, and honestly cannot understand why. He can’t unsee the parts of life that don’t fit with what he has believed his whole life, not just his own suffering, but the random nature of misfortune and lack of justice he sees around him. He will not be intimidated by those peddling platitudes, proverbs, and maxims. He will not be insulted. He will not be silent. He may have set himself against his fellow man, but he isn’t squarely against God. He wants answers and does not fear the consequences of this demand, whatever they may be. Our hero, after having challenges rained down on him, transforms from wishing he was never born, and proclaiming that he just wants to die, to standing up demanding an audience with the creator of the universe. That’s some character development right there. You can see Job strumming a guitar, or maybe a lyre, singing the words to a Tom Petty song as the stage lights dim and the audience rises for the first intermission:
No I won’t back down
You could stand me up at the gates of Hell
But I won’t back down
No I’ll stand my ground
Won’t be turned around
And I’ll keep this world from draggin’ me down
Gonna stand my ground
And I won’t back down
Well, I know what’s right
I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin’ me around
But I’ll stand my ground
And I won’t back down
MaximumKungFu 