I hadn't heard of the Professional Left until this week. In a recent podcast, Ep 270, Prayer Breakfasts, Blasphemy, and Aaron Schock, the subject of Job comes up. It was a good episode, especially because they introduced the subject of blasphemy (and, specifically, their concerns with a God who would allow children to suffer) by talking about the dreaded Guinea Worm disease that plagues much of the world, especially on the African continent. While a graduate student in Atlanta, I studied and worked with the folks at The Carter Center who have made the eradication of this horrible malady something we will see in our lifetimes. I always like when my interests in theology and public health overlap.
But back to Job. Job is an interesting work that reflects a lot of the culture and theological thinking in Israel seeking to reconcile the "phenomena of reality to an underlying truth" of suffering in the world (Bandstra, p.414). Bandstra notes that Job is a response to traditional Middle Eastern wisdom literature that solely asserts and rests on a interpretation of society where righteousness and justice. are normative; in Job (and Ecclesiastes, for that matter) "'do right and you will be blessed'" does not actually work out in every situation" (Bandstra, p.409). To this point, Bandstra cites Mesopotaniam and Sumerian writings that reflect the same basic premise in their writings: the world isn't simple enough to always work out favorably for people who just trust in God. Job, then, reflects a large current of thought in Israelite society that struggled to make sense of "why bad things happen to good people."
Now to the podcast. The hosts of this podcast get just as much right as they get wrong about Job. Their basic introduction of Job's context is mostly right. In describing the setting in Job chapter 1, they distill the entire rest of the book as "a bet between God and the devil," which is essentially true (I wouldn't call it a bet, because nothing is wagered, but in the larger sense that the devil is challenging/wagering that Job would react in a certain way, which God agrees to test [Job 1:12; 2:6], it is a bet). They correctly describe Job as being blameless and righteous before God [Job 1:1]. So a lot of the broader themes they get right.
But they also miss a lot of the finer details which are actually essential to understanding the main motifs and lesson of Job. First, they say that God "murdered a bunch of people," which was actually the responsibility of the Satan, the "accuser" in the narrative. In Job 1:12, God gives Satan the power to take Job's property and children, and it is later Satan in 2:7 who goes and inflicts the dreaded skin maladies on Job. The hosts are only right in blaming God for this because of God's passive resistance (or perhaps even active permission giving), but to say that God was the murderer is incorrect. The hosts also claim that Job's wife was killed, and that when Job's "new family" is provided to him, he also gets a new wife. I find no evidence that Job's wife is ever killed in the text; as late as 2:10 his wife is encouraging him to curse God, which is many verses after the rest of Job's immediate family has been killed.
In the narrative section, theologian Christopher Stanley points out the contradictions between Job's response to his condition: he "accepts his losses patiently in the narrative sections but complains bitterly about his fate in the poetic chapters" (Stanley, The Hebrew Bible, p.508). Dr. Lester explains how this is an example of "dissenting wisdom" within the larger theme of the Wisdom books in the Hebrew Scriptures. According to Dr. Lester in his lecture Wisdom B, Job parallels a theme that is made clear in Ecclesiastes (e.g. 8:25) that humans, as a class, cannot dispute with the One who is stronger than human beings. The emphasis is not on the goodness of the King, says Dr. Lester, but depends on the King's power and strength.
And this is essentially how Job interfaces with God. In baring all of his emotion, Job is essentially putting God on trial for what he believes to be unjust and unfair treatment, and as a Stanley points out, "this assessment of his own conduct is correct" (Stanley, p.510). When God finally answers, God doesn't explain God's actions, doesn't give Job any explanation, and doesn't apologize. This is not a God who is trying to be good. In fact, God "assaults Job with a barrage of questions highlighting the gulf" between God's and Job's knowledge and understanding (Stanley, p.511). Job never gets an answer about his suffering, and neither does the audience. And I think this is the ultimate lesson in the book of Job.
In a culture that was used to applying "conventional" wisdom and so-called "Deuteronomic thinking" to their lives (i.e. do good, and good things will happen to you), Job flips the script entirely. As Stanley summarizes, "even the most devout servants of Yahweh experience sufferings for reasons that are known only to the deity" (Stanley, p.511). Neither life nor God are simple enough to distill into dualisms about good/evil and doing right vs wrong. Job is a lesson in not applying conventional wisdom to the hardships of life, but in all things, trusting in God's power. It's not an easy lesson to absorb, but for people who are familiar with the shit that life throws at us, it makes a lot of sense.
But back to Job. Job is an interesting work that reflects a lot of the culture and theological thinking in Israel seeking to reconcile the "phenomena of reality to an underlying truth" of suffering in the world (Bandstra, p.414). Bandstra notes that Job is a response to traditional Middle Eastern wisdom literature that solely asserts and rests on a interpretation of society where righteousness and justice. are normative; in Job (and Ecclesiastes, for that matter) "'do right and you will be blessed'" does not actually work out in every situation" (Bandstra, p.409). To this point, Bandstra cites Mesopotaniam and Sumerian writings that reflect the same basic premise in their writings: the world isn't simple enough to always work out favorably for people who just trust in God. Job, then, reflects a large current of thought in Israelite society that struggled to make sense of "why bad things happen to good people."
Now to the podcast. The hosts of this podcast get just as much right as they get wrong about Job. Their basic introduction of Job's context is mostly right. In describing the setting in Job chapter 1, they distill the entire rest of the book as "a bet between God and the devil," which is essentially true (I wouldn't call it a bet, because nothing is wagered, but in the larger sense that the devil is challenging/wagering that Job would react in a certain way, which God agrees to test [Job 1:12; 2:6], it is a bet). They correctly describe Job as being blameless and righteous before God [Job 1:1]. So a lot of the broader themes they get right.
In the narrative section, theologian Christopher Stanley points out the contradictions between Job's response to his condition: he "accepts his losses patiently in the narrative sections but complains bitterly about his fate in the poetic chapters" (Stanley, The Hebrew Bible, p.508). Dr. Lester explains how this is an example of "dissenting wisdom" within the larger theme of the Wisdom books in the Hebrew Scriptures. According to Dr. Lester in his lecture Wisdom B, Job parallels a theme that is made clear in Ecclesiastes (e.g. 8:25) that humans, as a class, cannot dispute with the One who is stronger than human beings. The emphasis is not on the goodness of the King, says Dr. Lester, but depends on the King's power and strength.
And this is essentially how Job interfaces with God. In baring all of his emotion, Job is essentially putting God on trial for what he believes to be unjust and unfair treatment, and as a Stanley points out, "this assessment of his own conduct is correct" (Stanley, p.510). When God finally answers, God doesn't explain God's actions, doesn't give Job any explanation, and doesn't apologize. This is not a God who is trying to be good. In fact, God "assaults Job with a barrage of questions highlighting the gulf" between God's and Job's knowledge and understanding (Stanley, p.511). Job never gets an answer about his suffering, and neither does the audience. And I think this is the ultimate lesson in the book of Job.
In a culture that was used to applying "conventional" wisdom and so-called "Deuteronomic thinking" to their lives (i.e. do good, and good things will happen to you), Job flips the script entirely. As Stanley summarizes, "even the most devout servants of Yahweh experience sufferings for reasons that are known only to the deity" (Stanley, p.511). Neither life nor God are simple enough to distill into dualisms about good/evil and doing right vs wrong. Job is a lesson in not applying conventional wisdom to the hardships of life, but in all things, trusting in God's power. It's not an easy lesson to absorb, but for people who are familiar with the shit that life throws at us, it makes a lot of sense.
Ultimately, their discussion is left incomplete. Blue Gal, who is one of the hosts, summarizes Job this way: "about one's inner life being too important to be represented by your outer lifestyle." She goes on to describe the dissonance of driving an Escalade to church, and how it's easy to worship God when you have everything you need. But I don't think that's a complete understanding of what's happening in Job.
1 comment:
Hello,
I really appreciate your insight in this post. Very thorough and helpful information. I especially appreciated how you used the other course materials to support your assertions.
I'd be interested to hear your opinion of their comments on the Guinea Worm dialogue -- especially given your interest in the intersections between public health and theology! I thought it was an interesting point that they made to connect to their discussion of the book of Job.
I really appreciated your statement "Job never gets an answer about his suffering, and neither does the audience. And I think this is the ultimate lesson in the book of Job." One of the major issues I had with the podcast was their seemingly incessant need to turn Job into doctrine or dogma rather than letting it be a more open-ended space to question God. This relates to the Wisdom genre and to the nature of dissenting wisdom, which I thought you summarized well. People often seem to want to put God in a neat, tidy box and I appreciate the space in Job to not do that.
I wonder if you could say more about your statement at the end - that we are supposed to trust God's power. I agree with you, but I think it is difficult for a lot of folks to "blindly" trust this, particularly in the context of a story like Job.
Thanks!
Peace,
Joan.
Post a Comment