The Book of Job is well known for the way in which it highlights some of humanity’s most profound questions within the Judeo-Christian tradition; one of them being the question of theodicy.The word theodicy constitutes a concern for both God (theos) and justice (dike). It literally means God-justice or the justice of God. Theodicy perhaps, could be loosely defined as an attempt to vindicate God as “not guilty” for the suffering and the denigration of society and order.
The generally accepted understanding of the ancient Israelite community was that a relationship existed between one’s actions and the consequences of that act, enacted by the divine retribution of Yahweh. The Israelite people acknowledged only one God ‘Yahweh’ - and by implication this required the single deity to be ultimately responsible for everything that transpired, hence Yahweh is acknowledged as the one who gives prosperity as well as the one who inflicts suffering. This was unique to monotheism and distinct from polytheistic belief in a pantheon of deities, each of whom was ascribed with different divine responsibilities. The outcome of Israel’s monotheism meant that all natural forces were attributed to Yahweh, and naturally the presumption was that forces responsible for destruction were instruments of divine retribution for sin.
Walter Brueggemann highlights various articulations of the accepted theodic understanding of divine retribution in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Torah tradition directly highlighted the covenantal relationship in obeying or disobeying the commandments given by Yahweh and subsequently reaping the consequences of that choice (Deut 30:15-20). The prophets pronounced condemnation against Israel and issued the appropriate judgment in accordance with Torah instruction for Israel’s failure to adhere to the law (Amos 4:1-3). The wisdom literature expressed divine retribution within socially domesticated settings, where wise and upright decisions and good behaviour contracted prosperity and health, while foolish choices and behaviour resulted in deficiency (Prov. 11:8; 12:13). Although slight subtleties do exist in the varied literary forms of the Hebrew Scriptures, Yahweh’s divine retribution articulated in action equals consequence remains distinct in Ancient Israel’s understanding.
The Book of Job, in its current existing format is wrought with mystery, in both its minor details and its perplexing questions. Difficulties arise when attempting to identify the author and date of Job, however it is appropriate to recognise that in coherence with ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature, the Book of Job may purposefully avoids specific historical peculiarities, giving it universal acceptability.
The suffering experienced by our established protagonist Job, bears impact upon his communion with God and consequently the divine retributive theology of his time becomes questionable to him. The account of the tests contained in the Prologue is valuable information for the reader, however what has transpired in the heavenly court is unknown to Job and his friends as the readers we are aware of Job’s uprightness (1:1), the satan figure (satan meaning accuser and not to be confused with the later mythological bad-guy) and his intentions (1:6, 2:1) and God’s faith in Job’s character (1:8, 2:3), whereas the dialoguing characters with the exception of Yahweh remain naïve, and this naïvity is reflected in the dialogue which spans forty or so chapters.
Job delivers the first word, which starts the dialogue by breaking the silence with a lament, a cry of grief and a curse against his birth because of the misfortune that has besieged him (3:1-26). The question of Job’s integrity is first raised in Eliphaz’ speech, in which Eliphaz offers well intended comfort to Job. Eliphaz’ adherence to the retributive justice framework of the day fails to offer Job comfort, but rather opens the question of theodicy as Job rightfully considers himself blameless (31:1-40). For Job, the questions begin to arise: Is God responsible for my suffering? Is He my friend or enemy? and based on the discourse that Job follows, God is known to Job as the latter (6:2-5).
The doctrine that the friends hold to brings Job to a place where he perceives that God has brought charges against him. Some commentators identify the legal metaphor present in the text of the poet. In dialogue with the friends Job surveys the impossibility of bringing God to trial, because of the inevitable imbalance that would be present in such a case (9:1-35). The language of litigation speaks volumes for Job’s perception of God’s authority as it is fitting for mortals to plead to God for mercy, not bring legal proceedings against the Almighty (9:14-15).
Job’s suffering doesn’t simply challenge the idea that God rewards the just and punishes the wicked, but rather it is a complete contradiction to that theology. The friends offer little to the dialogue beyond their single standpoint, as it is difficult for them to comprehend the implications of what Job’s suffering insists on. The poet doesn’t reveal any personal experiences or reasons of the friends which might lend support to Job’s understanding.
When the three friends speak, the obvious standpoint from which they speak dictates that suffering is always a result of sin, and from within that framework, what they offer to Job is admirable comfort and advice. The poet establishes the three friends as the voice of traditional understanding but whilst the friends are unified over that major standpoint, the author of the dialogue seeks to subtly distinguish their voices from one another.
The first of the friends to speak is Eliphaz (4:1-5:27; 15:1-35; 22:1-30). It is likely that Eliphaz is an older figure in Job’s life as he considers himself older than Job’s father (15:10). The first speech suggests that Eliphaz is considerate of Job’s suffering (4:2). He recognises Job’s piety (4:6-7) however due to his understanding of the retributive framework, he is convinced that Job has sinned and exhorts Job to seek forgiveness from God (5:6-9). Theodore Robinson in his work Job and His Friends identifies Eliphaz as a mystic, and the advice Eliphaz offers Job is sanctioned by an experience of divine revelation (4:12-21). Overall Eliphaz is a fine character who begins by offering Job hope of a brighter future (5:17-27).
Bildad is the second of the friends to respond (8:1-22; 18:1-21; 25:1-6). Bildad’s character is clearly distinguished from Eliphaz by the way the poet opens each of his speeches. Whilst Eliphaz appears attentive to Job’s suffering, Bildad opens with a defence of God’s justice (8:3-4). The divine retributive justice system is not merely the framework in which Bildad offers comfort; rather his defense of it is central to his speech. Like Eliphaz, Bildad urges Job toward repentance (8:5-7).
Zophar is the third to speak (11:1-20; 20:1-29) and unlike Eliphaz with his mystical experience and Bildad with his ancestral wisdom, Zophar doesn’t recognise any source of his wisdom.Instead he implies that he knows the hidden mind of God (11:6) and his desire is that God would be revealed to Job so that Job might understand.What Zophar says expresses his assurance in the theology of divine retribution. Again Zophar doesn’t add anything radically new to the dialogue and has become perhaps more dogmatic about the position that each of the friends hold.
As the dialogue becomes more impassioned, the friends’ standpoint becomes all the more obvious. Their unified voice remains the same: that all suffering is a result of sin, and so the inevitable conclusion for Job’s suffering is that Job has sinned, and is therefore reaping the chastisement of that sin. Within that working framework the friends are not wrong, and by urging Job to confess his sin they are sincerely offering Job hope for forgiveness and restoration.
The debate as wisdom dialogue doesn’t merely offer two different opinions, but rather two polarised moral imaginations, representing two understandings on the way the world is to be understood. The friends work within a traditionalist perspective that is reinforced by their experience, the wisdom of tradition and their own resolve, whilst Job’s understanding is sceptical of the fashionable opinion as the facts do not suffice when he considers his own suffering and innocence. Wisdom Dialogue provides a format for two opposing opinions to be in dialogue with one another.
After the three cycles of conversation and the contribution of Elihu, at the request of Job’s litigation (9:32; 13:3; 13:15), Yahweh speaks through the tempest (38:1-40:2; 40:6-41:34). Although Yahweh fails to address Job’s question on why the innocent suffer, given the Book of Job as a whole, whatever it is that Yahweh says brings peace and transformation to Job. It is often understood that the awe of Yahweh’s presence brings Job to the point of transformation, the text seems to place enormous value of the content of what Yahweh says. Given that in the Epilogue God refutes the friend’s words (42:7), it is safe to assume that what the poet attributes Yahweh with saying is not a simple variant of the accepted theodical understanding, but has something unique to offer to the dialogue.
The first speech that Yahweh gives is characterised by its listing of the designed elements in the Inanimate Physical World and the Animal and Bird Kingdoms. In Yahweh’s revelation of the Cosmic design, human beings and their values, laws and systems do not feature as primary, and there is no hint of a created order of which the ultimate purpose is human needs. This is well illustrated when Yahweh says:
Who has cleft a channel for the flood,This is a demonstration of the Yahweh character’s non-anthropocentric concern for the cosmos – a care that extends beyond human needs and requirements. This widely accepted view of divine retribution implies that all reward and punishment through nature merely exists as punishment or reward for human existence. Through Yahweh’s speeches the poet presents another perspective.
Or a way for the thunderbolt,
To bring rain on a land without people,
On a desert without man in it,
To satisfy the waste and desolate land
And to make the seeds of grass to sprout? (Job 38:25-27)
Perhaps, in the cosmic design of God, chaos and order, freedom and control, wisdom and folly all exist in paradox. This only complicates the question of a theodicy that seeks to defend a unilateral order by which the universe operates. The poet uses the image of Yahweh giving birth to the Sea (38:8-11), and treating this violent character of chaos like a baby in a playpen, as a representation of his power over the order and chaos that exists within the universe. For the poet, Yahweh does not destroy chaos, but brings it under his control. Perhaps this example is extended in Yahweh’s second speech in reference to Behemoth (40:15-24) and Leviathan (41:1-34). Both creatures of chaos are subject to Yahweh’s control. Job is challenged at the beginning of Yahweh’s second discourse to take the principles of the just rule that Job claimed for himself (29:7-25) and to put them to work in a cosmic setting. Again this highlights the futility in humankind claiming any understanding of the ways of Yahweh.
In considering the three of the voices from the Book of Job presented here, is it possible to draw a single conclusion as a solution to the question of theodicy? We are presented with Job’s voice, which when given his circumstances has reason to ask “why should people suffer?” His experience is incompatible with the tradition that Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar upheld. Each of their understanding is based on either their mystical experience, the tradition of their ancestors or their own resolve, so what Job proposes about theodicy is accepted only as an absurdity to them. Finally the voice of Yahweh is heard, for whom humanity’s suffering doesn’t appear to be of primary concern. Yahweh’s speeches provide an implicit challenge to the Hebrew notion of theodicy and perhaps what the friends and Job are requiring of God is nothing more than their own human presumption about God.
I would argue that the purpose of the Book of Job is not to provide a solution to the question of theodicy, but to allow a space for dialogue. Furthermore if we are to create from the text a theodicy of how God operates, is it fair for us to consider ourselves much different to Job’s friends? In summary of the Book of Job, I feel Mikhail Bakhtin’s description of Dostoyevsky’s literary universe can be applied. We ought to consider Job “an artistic universe of tension in simultaneity rather than of resolvement through temporal evolution or plot”.
In terms of application, I feel the Book of Job still challenges our modern-day religious perspectives in the same way it possibly challenged ancient perspectives. It is still common for me to hear pastoral advice to situation where people are experiencing major or minor issues saying “you just need to get into God more” or “you’re obviously not living rightly”. Sure this might be good advice (as was the friend’s advice to Job), but can often be meaningless or even offensive to any modern day hearer. I think we should show more sympathy to Job’s friends as we are often no different. However we also ought to understand that our relatively comfortable religious lives, can be so far removed from reality that a message we provide for a suffering world could implicitly be favoured by our comfortable lives and comfortable system.
This is a long post so congratulations if you’ve had the patience to endure it. To be honest its really study procrastination, but feel free to comment. It has been adapted from a paper a wrote recently and like most things I say or think, brings many more questions than answers.
Peace
nh
No comments:
Post a Comment